Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v5 7/8] pvqspinlock, x86: Add qspinlock para-virtualization support

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Il 27/02/2014 16:22, Raghavendra K T ha scritto:
> On 02/27/2014 08:15 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> [...]
> > > But neither of the VCPUs being kicked here are halted -- they're either
> > > running or runnable (descheduled by the hypervisor).
> > /me actually looks at Waiman's code...
> >
> > Right, this is really different from pvticketlocks, where the *unlock*
> > primitive wakes up a sleeping VCPU.  It is more similar to PLE
> > (pause-loop exiting).
> Adding to the discussion, I see there are two possibilities here,
> considering that in undercommit cases we should not exceed
> HEAD_SPIN_THRESHOLD,
>
> 1. the looping vcpu in pv_head_spin_check() should do halt()
> considering that we have done enough spinning (more than typical
> lock-hold time), and hence we are in potential overcommit.
>
> 2. multiplex kick_cpu to do directed yield in qspinlock case.
> But this may result in some ping ponging?
Actually, I think the qspinlock can work roughly the same as the 
pvticketlock, using the same lock_spinning and unlock_lock hooks.
The x86-specific codepath can use bit 1 in the ->wait byte as "I have 
halted, please kick me".
        value = _QSPINLOCK_WAITING;
        i = 0;
        do
                cpu_relax();
        while (ACCESS_ONCE(slock->lock) && i++ < BUSY_WAIT);
        if (ACCESS_ONCE(slock->lock)) {
                value |= _QSPINLOCK_HALTED;
                xchg(&slock->wait, value >> 8);
                if (ACCESS_ONCE(slock->lock)) {
                        ... call lock_spinning hook ...
                }
        }

        /*
         * Set the lock bit & clear the halted+waiting bits
         */
        if (cmpxchg(&slock->lock_wait, value,
                    _QSPINLOCK_LOCKED) == value)
                return -1;      /* Got the lock */
        __atomic_and(&slock->lock_wait, ~QSPINLOCK_HALTED);

The lock_spinning/unlock_lock code can probably be much simpler, because 
you do not need to keep a list of all spinning locks.  Unlock_lock can 
just use the CPU number to wake up the right CPU.
Paolo

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel