Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V10 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for linux guests running on KVM hypervisor

[Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/17/2013 08:41 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 08:25:19PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > On 07/17/2013 08:14 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 07:43:01PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > > > On 07/17/2013 06:55 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 06:25:05PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > > > > > On 07/17/2013 06:15 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 03:35:37PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Instead of halt we started with a sleep hypercall in those
> > > > > > > > > >   versions. Changed to halt() once Avi suggested to reuse existing sleep.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we use older hypercall with few changes like below:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > kvm_pv_wait_for_kick_op(flags, vcpu, w->lock )
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > >   // a0 reserved for flags
> > > > > > > > > > if (!w->lock)
> > > > > > > > > > return;
> > > > > > > > > > DEFINE_WAIT
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > end_wait
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > How would this help if NMI takes lock in critical section. The thing
> > > > > > > > > that may happen is that lock_waiting->want may have NMI lock value, but
> > > > > > > > > lock_waiting->lock will point to non NMI lock. Setting of want and lock
> > > > > > > > > have to be atomic.
> > > > > > > > True. so we are here
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >          non NMI lock(a)
> > > > > > > >          w->lock = NULL;
> > > > > > > >          smp_wmb();
> > > > > > > >          w->want = want;
> > > > > > > >                                 NMI
> > > > > > > >                           <---------------------
> > > > > > > >                            NMI lock(b)
> > > > > > > >                            w->lock = NULL;
> > > > > > > >                            smp_wmb();
> > > > > > > >                            w->want = want;
> > > > > > > >                            smp_wmb();
> > > > > > > >                            w->lock = lock;
> > > > > > > >                           ---------------------->
> > > > > > > >          smp_wmb();
> > > > > > > >          w->lock = lock;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so how about fixing like this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > again:
> > > > > > > >          w->lock = NULL;
> > > > > > > >          smp_wmb();
> > > > > > > >          w->want = want;
> > > > > > > >          smp_wmb();
> > > > > > > >          w->lock = lock;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > if (!lock || w->want != want) goto again;
> > > > > > > NMI can happen after the if() but before halt and the same situation
> > > > > > > we are trying to prevent with IRQs will occur.
> > > > > > True, we can not fix that. I thought to fix the inconsistency of
> > > > > > lock,want pair.
> > > > > > But NMI could happen after the first OR condition also.
> > > > > > /me thinks again
> > > > > lock_spinning() can check that it is called in nmi context and bail out.
> > > > Good point.
> > > > I think we can check for even irq context and bailout so that in irq
> > > > context we continue spinning instead of slowpath. no ?
> > > That will happen much more often and irq context is no a problem anyway.
> > Yes. It is not a problem. But my idea was to not to enter slowpath lock
> > during irq processing. Do you think that is a good idea?
> Why would we disable it if its purpose is to improve handling of
> contended locks? NMI is only special because it is impossible to handle
> and should not happen anyway.
Yes. agreed. indeed I saw degradation if we allow the slowpath spinlock 
to loop again.

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