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

[Waiman Long <waiman.long@xxxxxx>]

On 02/27/2014 09:45 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 27/02/2014 15:18, David Vrabel ha scritto:
> > On 27/02/14 13:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > Il 27/02/2014 13:11, David Vrabel ha scritto:
> > > > > > This patch adds para-virtualization support to the queue spinlock 
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > by enabling the queue head to kick the lock holder CPU, if known,
> > > > > > in when the lock isn't released for a certain amount of time. It
> > > > > > also enables the mutual monitoring of the queue head CPU and the
> > > > > > following node CPU in the queue to make sure that their CPUs will
> > > > > > stay scheduled in.
> > > > I'm not really understanding how this is supposed to work.  There
> > > > appears to be an assumption that a guest can keep one of its VCPUs
> > > > running by repeatedly kicking it?  This is not possible under Xen 
> > > > and I
> > > > doubt it's possible under KVM or any other hypervisor.
> > > KVM allows any VCPU to wake up a currently halted VCPU of its choice,
> > > see Documentation/virtual/kvm/hypercalls.txt.
> > 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).
> Paolo
Yes, it is mostly to deal with vCPU that are not running because of PLE.

-Longman

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