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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/9] xen: sched: make locking for {insert, remove}_vcpu consistent

On 08/10/15 17:46, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 08/10/15 16:20, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 08/10/15 15:58, George Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 29/09/15 18:31, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/15 17:55, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>>>> The insert_vcpu() scheduler hook is called with an
>>>>> inconsistent locking strategy. In fact, it is sometimes
>>>>> invoked while holding the runqueue lock and sometimes
>>>>> when that is not the case.
>>>>> In other words, some call sites seems to imply that
>>>>> locking should be handled in the callers, in schedule.c
>>>>> --e.g., in schedule_cpu_switch(), which acquires the
>>>>> runqueue lock before calling the hook; others that
>>>>> specific schedulers should be responsible for locking
>>>>> themselves --e.g., in sched_move_domain(), which does
>>>>> not acquire any lock for calling the hook.
>>>>> The right thing to do seems to always defer locking to
>>>>> the specific schedulers, as it's them that know what, how
>>>>> and when it is best to lock (as in: runqueue locks, vs.
>>>>> private scheduler locks, vs. both, etc.)
>>>>> This patch, therefore:
>>>>>  - removes any locking around insert_vcpu() from
>>>>>    generic code (schedule.c);
>>>>>  - add the _proper_ locking in the hook implementations,
>>>>>    depending on the scheduler (for instance, credit2
>>>>>    does that already, credit1 and RTDS need to grab
>>>>>    the runqueue lock while manipulating runqueues).
>>>>> In case of credit1, remove_vcpu() handling needs some
>>>>> fixing remove_vcpu() too, i.e.:
>>>>>  - it manipulates runqueues, so the runqueue lock must
>>>>>    be acquired;
>>>>>  - *_lock_irq() is enough, there is no need to do
>>>>>    _irqsave()
>>>> Nothing in any of generic scheduling code should need interrupts
>>>> disabled at all.
>>>> One of the problem-areas identified by Jenny during the ticketlock
>>>> performance work was that the SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ was a large consumer of
>>>> time with interrupts disabled.  (The other large one being the time
>>>> calibration rendezvous, but that is a wildly different can of worms to 
>>>> fix.)
>>> Generic scheduling code is called from interrupt contexts -- namely,
>>> vcpu_wake()
>> There are a lot of codepaths, but I cant see one which is definitely
>> called with interrupts disables.  (OTOH, I can see several where
>> interrupts are definitely enabled).
> Oh, I think I misunderstood you.  You meant, "No codepaths *calling
> into* generic scheduling code should need interrupts disabled at all".
> I can certainly believe that to be true in most cases; there's no sense
> in saving the flags if we don't need to.

My original statement came from the observation that schedule() runs
with interrupts disabled, and takes between 2.2 and 4 microseconds to
run (as measured during the ticketlock performance analysis).

It is the biggest consumer of time with interrupts disabled, next being
the time calibration rendezvous.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the majority of that time
does not need to be spent with interrupts disabled.  I might easily be
wrong, but I suspect I am not.


Xen-devel mailing list



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