[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] xen/spinlock: make recursive spinlocks a dedicated type


  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:05:24 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; keydata= xsFNBFLhNn8BEADVhE+Hb8i0GV6mihnnr/uiQQdPF8kUoFzCOPXkf7jQ5sLYeJa0cQi6Penp VtiFYznTairnVsN5J+ujSTIb+OlMSJUWV4opS7WVNnxHbFTPYZVQ3erv7NKc2iVizCRZ2Kxn srM1oPXWRic8BIAdYOKOloF2300SL/bIpeD+x7h3w9B/qez7nOin5NzkxgFoaUeIal12pXSR Q354FKFoy6Vh96gc4VRqte3jw8mPuJQpfws+Pb+swvSf/i1q1+1I4jsRQQh2m6OTADHIqg2E ofTYAEh7R5HfPx0EXoEDMdRjOeKn8+vvkAwhviWXTHlG3R1QkbE5M/oywnZ83udJmi+lxjJ5 YhQ5IzomvJ16H0Bq+TLyVLO/VRksp1VR9HxCzItLNCS8PdpYYz5TC204ViycobYU65WMpzWe LFAGn8jSS25XIpqv0Y9k87dLbctKKA14Ifw2kq5OIVu2FuX+3i446JOa2vpCI9GcjCzi3oHV e00bzYiHMIl0FICrNJU0Kjho8pdo0m2uxkn6SYEpogAy9pnatUlO+erL4LqFUO7GXSdBRbw5 gNt25XTLdSFuZtMxkY3tq8MFss5QnjhehCVPEpE6y9ZjI4XB8ad1G4oBHVGK5LMsvg22PfMJ ISWFSHoF/B5+lHkCKWkFxZ0gZn33ju5n6/FOdEx4B8cMJt+cWwARAQABzSlBbmRyZXcgQ29v cGVyIDxhbmRyZXcuY29vcGVyM0BjaXRyaXguY29tPsLBegQTAQgAJAIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkI CwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAUCWKD95wIZAQAKCRBlw/kGpdefoHbdD/9AIoR3k6fKl+RFiFpyAhvO 59ttDFI7nIAnlYngev2XUR3acFElJATHSDO0ju+hqWqAb8kVijXLops0gOfqt3VPZq9cuHlh IMDquatGLzAadfFx2eQYIYT+FYuMoPZy/aTUazmJIDVxP7L383grjIkn+7tAv+qeDfE+txL4 SAm1UHNvmdfgL2/lcmL3xRh7sub3nJilM93RWX1Pe5LBSDXO45uzCGEdst6uSlzYR/MEr+5Z JQQ32JV64zwvf/aKaagSQSQMYNX9JFgfZ3TKWC1KJQbX5ssoX/5hNLqxMcZV3TN7kU8I3kjK mPec9+1nECOjjJSO/h4P0sBZyIUGfguwzhEeGf4sMCuSEM4xjCnwiBwftR17sr0spYcOpqET ZGcAmyYcNjy6CYadNCnfR40vhhWuCfNCBzWnUW0lFoo12wb0YnzoOLjvfD6OL3JjIUJNOmJy RCsJ5IA/Iz33RhSVRmROu+TztwuThClw63g7+hoyewv7BemKyuU6FTVhjjW+XUWmS/FzknSi dAG+insr0746cTPpSkGl3KAXeWDGJzve7/SBBfyznWCMGaf8E2P1oOdIZRxHgWj0zNr1+ooF /PzgLPiCI4OMUttTlEKChgbUTQ+5o0P080JojqfXwbPAyumbaYcQNiH1/xYbJdOFSiBv9rpt TQTBLzDKXok86M7BTQRS4TZ/ARAAkgqudHsp+hd82UVkvgnlqZjzz2vyrYfz7bkPtXaGb9H4 Rfo7mQsEQavEBdWWjbga6eMnDqtu+FC+qeTGYebToxEyp2lKDSoAsvt8w82tIlP/EbmRbDVn 7bhjBlfRcFjVYw8uVDPptT0TV47vpoCVkTwcyb6OltJrvg/QzV9f07DJswuda1JH3/qvYu0p vjPnYvCq4NsqY2XSdAJ02HrdYPFtNyPEntu1n1KK+gJrstjtw7KsZ4ygXYrsm/oCBiVW/OgU g/XIlGErkrxe4vQvJyVwg6YH653YTX5hLLUEL1NS4TCo47RP+wi6y+TnuAL36UtK/uFyEuPy wwrDVcC4cIFhYSfsO0BumEI65yu7a8aHbGfq2lW251UcoU48Z27ZUUZd2Dr6O/n8poQHbaTd 6bJJSjzGGHZVbRP9UQ3lkmkmc0+XCHmj5WhwNNYjgbbmML7y0fsJT5RgvefAIFfHBg7fTY/i kBEimoUsTEQz+N4hbKwo1hULfVxDJStE4sbPhjbsPCrlXf6W9CxSyQ0qmZ2bXsLQYRj2xqd1 bpA+1o1j2N4/au1R/uSiUFjewJdT/LX1EklKDcQwpk06Af/N7VZtSfEJeRV04unbsKVXWZAk uAJyDDKN99ziC0Wz5kcPyVD1HNf8bgaqGDzrv3TfYjwqayRFcMf7xJaL9xXedMcAEQEAAcLB XwQYAQgACQUCUuE2fwIbDAAKCRBlw/kGpdefoG4XEACD1Qf/er8EA7g23HMxYWd3FXHThrVQ HgiGdk5Yh632vjOm9L4sd/GCEACVQKjsu98e8o3ysitFlznEns5EAAXEbITrgKWXDDUWGYxd pnjj2u+GkVdsOAGk0kxczX6s+VRBhpbBI2PWnOsRJgU2n10PZ3mZD4Xu9kU2IXYmuW+e5KCA vTArRUdCrAtIa1k01sPipPPw6dfxx2e5asy21YOytzxuWFfJTGnVxZZSCyLUO83sh6OZhJkk b9rxL9wPmpN/t2IPaEKoAc0FTQZS36wAMOXkBh24PQ9gaLJvfPKpNzGD8XWR5HHF0NLIJhgg 4ZlEXQ2fVp3XrtocHqhu4UZR4koCijgB8sB7Tb0GCpwK+C4UePdFLfhKyRdSXuvY3AHJd4CP 4JzW0Bzq/WXY3XMOzUTYApGQpnUpdOmuQSfpV9MQO+/jo7r6yPbxT7CwRS5dcQPzUiuHLK9i nvjREdh84qycnx0/6dDroYhp0DFv4udxuAvt1h4wGwTPRQZerSm4xaYegEFusyhbZrI0U9tJ B8WrhBLXDiYlyJT6zOV2yZFuW47VrLsjYnHwn27hmxTC/7tvG3euCklmkn9Sl9IAKFu29RSo d5bD8kMSCYsTqtTfT6W4A3qHGvIDta3ptLYpIAOD2sY3GYq2nf3Bbzx81wZK14JdDDHUX2Rs 6+ahAA==
  • Cc: javi.merino@xxxxxxxxx, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <paul@xxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lukasz Hawrylko <lukasz@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mateusz Mówka <mateusz.mowka@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:05:29 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 19/10/2023 10:39 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.10.2023 11:35, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 19/10/2023 8:48 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 13.10.2023 11:42, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> Instead of being able to use normal spinlocks as recursive ones, too,
>>>> make recursive spinlocks a special lock type.
>>>>
>>>> This will make the spinlock structure smaller in production builds and
>>>> add type-safety.
>>>>
>>>> This allows to increase the maximum number of physical cpus from 8191
>>>> to 65535 without increasing the size of the lock structure in production
>>>> builds (the size of recursive spinlocks in debug builds will grow to
>>>> 12 bytes due to that change).
>>>>
>>>> Changes in V2:
>>>> - addressed comments by Jan Beulich
>>>> - lots of additional cleanups
>>>> - reorganized complete series
>>>>
>>>> Juergen Gross (13):
>>>>   xen/spinlock: fix coding style issues
>>>>   xen/spinlock: reduce lock profile ifdefs
>>>>   xen/spinlock: make spinlock initializers more readable
>>>>   xen/spinlock: introduce new type for recursive spinlocks
>>>>   xen/spinlock: rename recursive lock functions
>>>>   xen/spinlock: add rspin_[un]lock_irq[save|restore]()
>>>>   xen/spinlock: make struct lock_profile rspinlock_t aware
>>>>   xen/spinlock: add explicit non-recursive locking functions
>>>>   xen/spinlock: add another function level
>>>>   xen/spinlock: add missing rspin_is_locked() and rspin_barrier()
>>>>   xen/spinlock: split recursive spinlocks from normal ones
>>>>   xen/spinlock: remove indirection through macros for spin_*() functions
>>>>   xen/spinlock: support higher number of cpus
>>> Before looking at patches 4 and onwards, I'd like us to settle on the future
>>> of recursive locking in Xen, considering in particular Andrew's objections
>>> to their use in the code base. If the plan was to eliminate them, I'd see
>>> little point in reworking the infrastructure. I'd like to suggest that one
>>> of us tries to remember to put this up as an agenda item for the next
>>> Community Call. But of course the discussion can also happen right here; I
>>> merely expect there might not be much of a reaction.
>> Actually, I consider this series an improvement.  The CPU limit is the
>> most urgent problem to fix.
>>
>> XenServer has just jumped to NR_CPUS=2k in order to support 2024's range
>> of hardware, and it's only going to be a couple of years more before
>> we're stuck given the current spinlocks.
>>
>> I do genuinely think the code and logic would be better without
>> recursive locks, but making that happen is going to be very invasive and
>> complicated.
>>
>> But in the meantime with spinlocks properly separated from recursive
>> locks, it becomes easier IMO to dissuade the introduction of new cases
>> while we unpick the existing ones.
>>
>> And so what if we do end up deleting recursive locks in a few years
>> time?  That's not an argument against doing this untangling now.
> Of course if that was happening only in a few years time, the series
> here is still worthwhile to have. My question was rather towards us
> possibly eliminating recursive locks in the next release cycle.

I find it unlikely that we'd manage to do it in the next release cycle,
even if we did dedicate a significant portion of effort to it.  There
are more urgent things too.

But the same argument works with several years substituted for months. 

~Andrew



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.