From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 02:58:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <2136938368.606190.1475218738567.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
References: <1469101514-49475-1-git-send-email-xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20160929101040.GV5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<166f3bad-f700-4624-6c1c-996f90ad609c@de.ibm.com>
	<20160929103133.GW5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	<496ba299-1f1d-e98b-7827-f861eeea5558@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>
In-Reply-To: <496ba299-1f1d-e98b-7827-f861eeea5558@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
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: Pan Xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: kernellwp@gmail.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, jgross@suse.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, will deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, paulus@samba.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, xen-devel-request@lists.xenproject.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org

> > > > Please consider s390 and (x86/arm) KVM. Once we have a few, more can
> > > > follow later, but I think its important to not only have PPC support for
> > > > this.
> > >
> > > Actually the s390 preemted check via sigp sense running  is available for
> > > all hypervisors (z/VM, LPAR and KVM) which implies everywhere as you can
> > > no longer buy s390 systems without LPAR.
> > >
> > > As Heiko already pointed out we could simply use a small inline function
> > > that calls cpu_is_preempted from arch/s390/lib/spinlock (or
> > > smp_vcpu_scheduled from smp.c)
> >
> > Sure, and I had vague memories of Heiko's email. This patch set however
> > completely fails to do that trivial hooking up.
> 
> sorry for that.
> I will try to work it out on x86.

x86 has no hypervisor support, and I'd like to understand the desired
semantics first, so I don't think it should block this series.  In
particular, there are at least the following choices:

1) exit to userspace (5-10.000 clock cycles best case) counts as
lock holder preemption

2) any time the vCPU thread not running counts as lock holder
preemption

To implement the latter you'd need a hypercall or MSR (at least as
a slow path), because the KVM preempt notifier is only active
during the KVM_RUN ioctl.

Paolo