From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755183Ab3GQOfk (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:35:40 -0400 Received: from e28smtp02.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.2]:57890 "EHLO e28smtp02.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755530Ab3GQOfi (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:35:38 -0400 Message-ID: <51E6A6CB.1090101@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 19:44:35 +0530 From: Raghavendra K T Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121029 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gleb Natapov , peterz@infradead.org CC: mingo@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org, x86@kernel.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, hpa@zytor.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, andi@firstfloor.org, ouyang@cs.pitt.edu, agraf@suse.de, chegu_vinod@hp.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, avi.kivity@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V10 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for linux guests running on KVM hypervisor References: <20130714131241.GA11772@redhat.com> <51E3C5CE.7000009@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130715103648.GN11772@redhat.com> <51E4C011.4060803@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130716060215.GE11772@redhat.com> <51E5941B.3090300@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130717093420.GU11772@redhat.com> <51E66C71.6020605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130717124511.GW11772@redhat.com> <51E69429.7040309@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130717132503.GA13732@redhat.com> <51E6A66D.7090407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <51E6A66D.7090407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13071714-5816-0000-0000-000008F56441 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/17/2013 07:43 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote: > On 07/17/2013 06:55 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 06:25:05PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: >>> On 07/17/2013 06:15 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 03:35:37PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: >>>>>>> Instead of halt we started with a sleep hypercall in those >>>>>>> versions. Changed to halt() once Avi suggested to reuse >>>>>>> existing sleep. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we use older hypercall with few changes like below: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> kvm_pv_wait_for_kick_op(flags, vcpu, w->lock ) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> // a0 reserved for flags >>>>>>> if (!w->lock) >>>>>>> return; >>>>>>> DEFINE_WAIT >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> end_wait >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>> How would this help if NMI takes lock in critical section. The thing >>>>>> that may happen is that lock_waiting->want may have NMI lock >>>>>> value, but >>>>>> lock_waiting->lock will point to non NMI lock. Setting of want and >>>>>> lock >>>>>> have to be atomic. >>>>> >>>>> True. so we are here >>>>> >>>>> non NMI lock(a) >>>>> w->lock = NULL; >>>>> smp_wmb(); >>>>> w->want = want; >>>>> NMI >>>>> <--------------------- >>>>> NMI lock(b) >>>>> w->lock = NULL; >>>>> smp_wmb(); >>>>> w->want = want; >>>>> smp_wmb(); >>>>> w->lock = lock; >>>>> ----------------------> >>>>> smp_wmb(); >>>>> w->lock = lock; >>>>> >>>>> so how about fixing like this? >>>>> >>>>> again: >>>>> w->lock = NULL; >>>>> smp_wmb(); >>>>> w->want = want; >>>>> smp_wmb(); >>>>> w->lock = lock; >>>>> >>>>> if (!lock || w->want != want) goto again; >>>>> >>>> NMI can happen after the if() but before halt and the same situation >>>> we are trying to prevent with IRQs will occur. >>> >>> True, we can not fix that. I thought to fix the inconsistency of >>> lock,want pair. >>> But NMI could happen after the first OR condition also. >>> /me thinks again >>> >> lock_spinning() can check that it is called in nmi context and bail out. > > Good point. > I think we can check for even irq context and bailout so that in irq > context we continue spinning instead of slowpath. no ? > >> How often this will happens anyway. >> > > I know NMIs occur frequently with watchdogs. or used by sysrq-trigger > etc.. But I am not an expert how frequent it is otherwise. Forgot to ask if Peter has any points on NMI frequency. But even > then if they do not use spinlock, we have no problem as already pointed. > > I can measure with debugfs counter how often it happens.