[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v4 12/12] xen/spinlock: support higher number of cpus
- To: Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:07:20 +0100
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:07:28 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 29.02.2024 18:04, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 29.02.24 17:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.02.2024 17:45, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 29.02.24 17:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 29.02.2024 17:29, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>>>> On 29.02.24 16:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 12.12.2023 10:47, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>> Allow 16 bits per cpu number, which is the limit imposed by
>>>>>>> spinlock_tickets_t.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This will allow up to 65535 cpus, while increasing only the size of
>>>>>>> recursive spinlocks in debug builds from 8 to 12 bytes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we want to be more conservative here, for the case of there
>>>>>> being bugs: The CPU holding a lock may wrongly try to acquire it a
>>>>>> 2nd time. That's the 65536th ticket then, wrapping the value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this really a problem? There will be no other cpu left seeing the lock
>>>>> as "free" in this case, as all others will be waiting for the head to
>>>>> reach
>>>>> their private tail value.
>>>>
>>>> But isn't said CPU then going to make progress, rather than indefinitely
>>>> spinning on the lock?
>>>
>>> No, I don't think so.
>>
>> Hmm. If CPU0 takes a pristine lock, it'll get ticket 0x0000. All other
>> CPUs will get tickets 0x0001 ... 0xffff. Then CPU0 trying to take the lock
>
> No, they'll get 0x0001 ... 0xfffe (only 65535 cpus are supported).
>
>> again will get ticket 0x0000 again, which equals what .head still has (no
>
> And the first cpu will get 0xffff when trying to get the lock again.
Oh, right. Still a little too close to the boundary for my taste ...
Jan
|
