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

[Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  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?

> -
> -     /*
> -      * 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;
> +     return pv_virt_spin_lock(lock);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +     return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>  }
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>  #endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
>  
>  #include <asm-generic/qspinlock.h>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c 
> b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
> index 26e4bd92f309..1be187ef8a38 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ bool pv_is_native_spin_unlock(void)
>               __raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock;
>  }
>  
> +__visible bool __native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +     return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
> +}
> +PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__native_virt_spin_lock);

I have some concern about the overhead of register saving/restoring have
on spin lock performance in case the kernel is under a non-KVM/Xen
hypervisor.

Cheers,
Longman

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