From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V4 4/5] kvm : pv-ticketlocks support for linux guests
	running on KVM hypervisor
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:24:46 +0530
Message-ID: <20120118135445.GB25711@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20120114182501.8604.68416.sendpatchset@oc5400248562.ibm.com>
	<20120114182645.8604.68884.sendpatchset@oc5400248562.ibm.com>
	<20120117110210.GA17420@amt.cnet>
	<20120117113312.GB30398@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4F1621B2.3020203@goop.org>
Reply-To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F1621B2.3020203@goop.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: X86 <x86@kernel.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, Virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Xen <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>, Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org

* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> [2012-01-18 12:34:42]:

> >> What prevents a kick from being lost here, if say, the waiter is at
> >> local_irq_save in kvm_lock_spinning, before the lock/want assignments?
> > The waiter does check for lock becoming available before actually
> > sleeping:
> >
> > +	/*
> > +        * check again make sure it didn't become free while
> > +        * we weren't looking.
> > +        */
> > +	if (ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets.head) == want) {
> > +               add_stats(TAKEN_SLOW_PICKUP, 1);
> > +               goto out;
> > +	}
> 
> That logic relies on the "kick" being level triggered, so that "kick"
> before "block" will cause the block to fall out immediately.  If you're
> using "hlt" as the block and it has the usual edge-triggered behaviour,
> what stops a "kick-before-hlt" from losing the kick?

Hmm ..'hlt' should result in a check for kick request (in hypervisor
context) before vcpu is put to sleep. IOW vcpu1 that is attempting to kick vcpu0
will set a 'somebody_tried_kicking_vcpu0' flag, which hypervisor should check 
before it puts vcpu0 to sleep because of trapped 'hlt' instruction.

Won't that trap the 'kick-before-hlt' case? What am I missing here?

- vatsa