Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

[Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>]

On 09/05/2017 10:24 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 10:18 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
>>>> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
>>>> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
>>>> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized
>>>> environment.
>>>>
>>>> Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users
>>>> to select an explicit behavior like bare metal.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h       |  5 ++++
>>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h |  1 +
>>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h      | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>>  arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c  | 14 ++++++++++
>>>>  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c             |  2 ++
>>>>  5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>>> index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>>> @@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>>>>  	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>>>>  
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>>> index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>>> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops {
>>>>  	void (*kick)(int cpu);
>>>>  
>>>>  	struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted;
>>>> +	struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock;
>>>>  } __no_randomize_layout;
>>>>  
>>>>  /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>>> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>>  	smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>>>> +		return false;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
>>>> +	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
>>>> +	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +
>>>> +	do {
>>>> +		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
>>>> +			cpu_relax();
>>>> +	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
>>>> +
>>>> +	return true;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>>>>  extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
>>>>  extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void);
>>>> @@ -38,33 +57,32 @@ static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	return pv_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
>>>>  }
>>>> +
>>>> +void native_pv_lock_init(void) __init;
>>>>  #else
>>>>  static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	native_queued_spin_unlock(lock);
>>>>  }
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline void native_pv_lock_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +}
>>>>  #endif
>>>>  
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>>>>  #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>>>>  static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>>>> -		return false;
>>> Have you consider just add one more jump label here to skip
>>> virt_spin_lock when KVM or Xen want to do so?
>> Why? Did you look at patch 4? This is the way to do it...
> I asked this because of my performance concern as stated later in the email.

For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
virt_spin_lock() a pv-op.

Cheers,
Longman