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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 16/18] vmx: Add some scheduler hooks for VT-d posted interrupts



>>> On 10.09.15 at 15:27, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:15 PM
>> To: Wu, Feng
>> Cc: Andrew Cooper; Dario Faggioli; George Dunlap; Tian, Kevin;
>> xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Keir Fraser
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 16/18] vmx: Add some scheduler hooks for VT-d posted
>> interrupts
>> 
>> >>> On 10.09.15 at 14:58, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> >> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 8:45 PM
>> >> To: Wu, Feng
>> >> Cc: Andrew Cooper; Dario Faggioli; George Dunlap; Tian, Kevin;
>> >> xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Keir Fraser
>> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 16/18] vmx: Add some scheduler hooks for VT-d
>> posted
>> >> interrupts
>> >>
>> >> >>> On 10.09.15 at 14:34, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> >> >> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:01 PM
>> >> >> To: Wu, Feng
>> >> >> Cc: Andrew Cooper; Dario Faggioli; George Dunlap; Tian, Kevin;
>> >> >> xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Keir Fraser
>> >> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 16/18] vmx: Add some scheduler hooks for VT-d
>> >> posted
>> >> >> interrupts
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> On 10.09.15 at 11:41, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:26 PM
>> >> >> >> >>> On 10.09.15 at 10:59, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > First, how to check it while waiting to acquire the lock 
>> >> >> >> > .pi_block_cpu
>> >> >> >> > didn't change?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Note the difference between "check while waiting" and "check that
>> >> >> >> while waiting": The former is indeed hard to implement, while the
>> >> >> >> latter is pretty straightforward (and we do so elsewhere).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Secondly, even if we can check it, what should we do if 
>> >> >> >> > .pi_block_cpu
>> >> >> >> > is changed after acquiring the lock as I mentioned above?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Drop the lock and start over. I.e. (taking your pseudo code)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> restart:
>> >> >> >>     local_pi_block_cpu = ...;
>> >> >> >>     bail-if-invalid (e.g. -1 in current model)
>> >> >> >>     spin_lock_irqsave(&per_cpu(, local_pi_block_cpu), flags);
>> >> >> >>     if(local_pi_block_cpu != actual_pi_block_cpu) {
>> >> >> >>         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&per_cpu(,local_pi_block_cpu),
>> flags);
>> >> >> >>         goto restart;
>> >> >> >>     }
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks a lot for showing me this pseudo code! My concern is if
>> >> >> > .pi_block_vcpu is changed to -1 at this point, it doesn't work.
>> >> >> > .pi_block_vcpu being -1 here means the vCPU is remove from
>> >> >> > the blocking list by others, then we cannot delete it again via
>> >> >> > list_del() here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Did you miss the "bail-if-invalid" above?
>> >> >
>> >> > I am sorry, do I miss something here? If .pi_block_cpu becomes
>> >> > -1 here (after the above 'if' statement is finished with
>> >> > local_pi_block_cpu == actual_pi_block_cpu ), how can "bail-if-invalid"
>> >> > above help?
>> >>
>> >> The (obvious I thought) implication is that all assignments to
>> >> pi_block_cpu (along with all list manipulations) now need to happen
>> >> with the lock held.
>> >
>> > If all the assignment to pi_block_cpu is with one lock held, I don't think
>> > we need to above checkout, we can safely use .pi_block_cpu, right?
>> 
>> No. In order to use it you need to make sure it's valid (or else
>> there's no valid lock to acquire). And once you acquired the
>> lock, you have to check whether changed / became invalid.
> 
> If all the assignment to .pi_block_cpu is with one lock held,
> how can it get changed / become invalid then once I acquired
> the lock?

Again - if pi_block_cpu is invalid, which lock do you want to acquire?

Jan


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


 


Rackspace

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