[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] grant_table: convert grant table rwlock to percpu rwlock
On 18/11/15 10:54, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 18.11.15 at 11:36, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 17:53 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 17/11/15 17:39, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 17.11.15 at 18:30, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03.11.15 at 18:58, <malcolm.crossley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> --- a/xen/common/grant_table.c >>>>>>> +++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c >>>>>>> @@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ struct active_grant_entry { >>>>>>> #define _active_entry(t, e) \ >>>>>>> ((t)->active[(e)/ACGNT_PER_PAGE][(e)%ACGNT_PER_PAGE]) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +bool_t grant_rwlock_barrier; >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(rwlock_t *, grant_rwlock); >>>>>> Shouldn't these be per grant table? And wouldn't doing so eliminate >>>>>> the main limitation of the per-CPU rwlocks? >>>>> The grant rwlock is per grant table. >>>> That's understood, but I don't see why the above items aren't, too. >>> >>> Ah - because there is never any circumstance where two grant tables are >>> locked on the same pcpu. >> >> So per-cpu rwlocks are really a per-pcpu read lock with a fallthrough to a >> per-$resource (here == granttable) rwlock when any writers are present for >> any instance $resource, not just the one where the write lock is desired, >> for the duration of any write lock? > The above description is the very good for for how the per-cpu rwlocks behave. The code stores a pointer to the per-$resource in the percpu area when a user is reading the per-$resource, this is why the lock is not safe if you take the lock for two different per-$resource simultaneously. The grant table code only takes one grant table lock at any one time so it is a safe user. I would posit that most code behaves in this manner in an attempt to avoid deadlocks. It may also be clearer to change the grant_table rwlock_t to a spinlock which the writers use. The interesting question is how generic a pattern is the grant table usage of only a single per-$resource at a time? The p2m code has it's own recursion detection code and so is safe from that issue but does it take a read lock for two per-$resource's simultaneously? > That's not how I understood it, the rwlock isn't per-pCPU (at least not > in what this patch does - it remains a per-domain one). The per-pCPU > object is a pointer to an rwlock, which gets made point to whatever > domain's rwlock the pCPU wants to own. > This description is correct but it's important to note that the rwlock is only used by the writers and could be effectively replaced with a spinlock. Malcolm > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |