Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1726721 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 0/4] make virt_spin_lock() a pvops function

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH 0/4] make virt_spin_lock() a pvops function Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> - 2017-09-05 15:30 +0200
    [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> - 2017-09-05 15:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-05 16:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-05 16:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> - 2017-09-05 16:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> - 2017-09-05 16:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> - 2017-09-05 16:20 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> - 2017-09-05 16:30 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> - 2017-09-05 16:40 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> - 2017-09-05 16:50 +0200
              Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-06 09:10 +0200
                Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> - 2017-09-06 14:50 +0200
                  Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-06 15:10 +0200
                    Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> - 2017-09-06 15:20 +0200

#1726721 — [PATCH 0/4] make virt_spin_lock() a pvops function

With virt_spin_lock() being a pvops function the bare metal case can be
optimized by patching the call away completely. In case a kernel running
as a guest it can decide whether to use paravitualized spinlocks, the
current fallback to the unfair test-and-set scheme, or to mimic the
bare metal behavior.

Juergen Gross (4):
  paravirt: add generic _paravirt_false() function
  paravirt: switch vcpu_is_preempted to use _paravirt_false() on bare
    metal
  paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function
  paravirt,xen: correct xen_nopvspin case

 arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h       |  5 ++++
 arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h |  3 +++
 arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h      | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c  | 22 ++++++++--------
 arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c            |  7 +++++
 arch/x86/kernel/paravirt_patch_32.c   | 18 ++++++-------
 arch/x86/kernel/paravirt_patch_64.c   | 17 +++++--------
 arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c             |  2 ++
 arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c               |  2 ++
 9 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)

-- 
2.12.3

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726722 — [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized
environment.

Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users
to select an explicit behavior like bare metal.

Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h       |  5 ++++
 arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h |  1 +
 arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h      | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c  | 14 ++++++++++
 arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c             |  2 ++
 5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
@@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
 	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu);
 }
 
+static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock);
+}
+
 #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
@@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops {
 	void (*kick)(int cpu);
 
 	struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted;
+	struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock;
 } __no_randomize_layout;
 
 /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
@@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
 	smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
 }
 
+static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
+		return false;
+
+	/*
+	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
+	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
+	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
+	 */
+
+	do {
+		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
+			cpu_relax();
+	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
+
+	return true;
+}
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
 extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
 extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void);
@@ -38,33 +57,32 @@ static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
 {
 	return pv_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
 }
+
+void native_pv_lock_init(void) __init;
 #else
 static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
 {
 	native_queued_spin_unlock(lock);
 }
+
+static inline void native_pv_lock_init(void)
+{
+}
 #endif
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
 #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock
+#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
 static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
 {
-	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
-		return false;
-
-	/*
-	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
-	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
-	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
-	 */
-
-	do {
-		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
-			cpu_relax();
-	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
-
-	return true;
+	return pv_virt_spin_lock(lock);
+}
+#else
+static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+	return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
 }
+#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
 #endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
 
 #include <asm-generic/qspinlock.h>
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
index 26e4bd92f309..1be187ef8a38 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
@@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ bool pv_is_native_spin_unlock(void)
 		__raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock;
 }
 
+__visible bool __native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
+{
+	return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
+}
+PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__native_virt_spin_lock);
+
 struct pv_lock_ops pv_lock_ops = {
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 	.queued_spin_lock_slowpath = native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath,
@@ -27,6 +33,14 @@ struct pv_lock_ops pv_lock_ops = {
 	.wait = paravirt_nop,
 	.kick = paravirt_nop,
 	.vcpu_is_preempted = __PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(_paravirt_false),
+	.virt_spin_lock = PV_CALLEE_SAVE(__native_virt_spin_lock),
 #endif /* SMP */
 };
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(pv_lock_ops);
+
+void __init native_pv_lock_init(void)
+{
+	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
+		pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock =
+			__PV_IS_CALLEE_SAVE(_paravirt_false);
+}
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
index 54b9e89d4d6b..21500d3ba359 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@
 #include <asm/i8259.h>
 #include <asm/realmode.h>
 #include <asm/misc.h>
+#include <asm/qspinlock.h>
 
 /* Number of siblings per CPU package */
 int smp_num_siblings = 1;
@@ -1381,6 +1382,7 @@ void __init native_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
 	/* already set me in cpu_online_mask in boot_cpu_init() */
 	cpumask_set_cpu(me, cpu_callout_mask);
 	cpu_set_state_online(me);
+	native_pv_lock_init();
 }
 
 void __init native_smp_cpus_done(unsigned int max_cpus)
-- 
2.12.3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726761 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:24:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  	smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
>  }
>  


Should this not have:

#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT

?

> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
> +	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
> +	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
> +	 */
> +
> +	do {
> +		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
> +			cpu_relax();
> +	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
> +
> +	return true;
> +}

#endif

> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>  extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
>  extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void);


>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>  #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>  static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  {
> +	return pv_virt_spin_lock(lock);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>  }
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>  #endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */

Because I think the above only ever uses native_virt_spin_lock() when
PARAVIRT.

> @@ -1381,6 +1382,7 @@ void __init native_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
>  	/* already set me in cpu_online_mask in boot_cpu_init() */
>  	cpumask_set_cpu(me, cpu_callout_mask);
>  	cpu_set_state_online(me);
> +	native_pv_lock_init();
>  }

Aah, this is where that goes.. OK that works too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726766 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On 05/09/17 15:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:24:43PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>  	smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
>>  }
>>  
> 
> 
> Should this not have:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> 
> ?

I can add it if you want.


Juergen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726763 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized
> environment.
>
> Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users
> to select an explicit behavior like bare metal.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h       |  5 ++++
>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h |  1 +
>  arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h      | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c  | 14 ++++++++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c             |  2 ++
>  5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
> index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
> @@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>  	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu);
>  }
>  
> +static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock);
> +}
> +
>  #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops {
>  	void (*kick)(int cpu);
>  
>  	struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted;
> +	struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock;
>  } __no_randomize_layout;
>  
>  /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  	smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
> +		return false;
> +

I think you can take the above if statement out as you has done test in
native_pv_lock_init(). So the test will also be false here.

As this patch series is x86 specific, you should probably add "x86/" in
front of paravirt in the patch titles.

Cheers,
Longman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726764 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:02:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:

> > +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> > +{
> > +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> 
> I think you can take the above if statement out as you has done test in
> native_pv_lock_init(). So the test will also be false here.

That does mean we'll run a test-and-set spinlock until paravirt patching
happens though. I prefer to not do that.

One important point.. we must not be holding any locks when we switch
over between the two locks. Back then I spend some time making sure that
didn't happen with the X86 feature flag muck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726775 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On 09/05/2017 10:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:02:57AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>>> +		return false;
>>> +
>> I think you can take the above if statement out as you has done test in
>> native_pv_lock_init(). So the test will also be false here.
> That does mean we'll run a test-and-set spinlock until paravirt patching
> happens though. I prefer to not do that.
>
> One important point.. we must not be holding any locks when we switch
> over between the two locks. Back then I spend some time making sure that
> didn't happen with the X86 feature flag muck.

AFAICT, native_pv_lock_init() is called before SMP init. So it shouldn't
matter.

Cheers,
Longman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726776 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized
> environment.
>
> Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users
> to select an explicit behavior like bare metal.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h       |  5 ++++
>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h |  1 +
>  arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h      | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c  | 14 ++++++++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c             |  2 ++
>  5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
> index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
> @@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>  	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu);
>  }
>  
> +static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock);
> +}
> +
>  #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops {
>  	void (*kick)(int cpu);
>  
>  	struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted;
> +	struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock;
>  } __no_randomize_layout;
>  
>  /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  	smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
> +	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
> +	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
> +	 */
> +
> +	do {
> +		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
> +			cpu_relax();
> +	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
> +
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>  extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
>  extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void);
> @@ -38,33 +57,32 @@ static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>  {
>  	return pv_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
>  }
> +
> +void native_pv_lock_init(void) __init;
>  #else
>  static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  {
>  	native_queued_spin_unlock(lock);
>  }
> +
> +static inline void native_pv_lock_init(void)
> +{
> +}
>  #endif
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>  #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>  static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  {
> -	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
> -		return false;

Have you consider just add one more jump label here to skip
virt_spin_lock when KVM or Xen want to do so?

> -
> -	/*
> -	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
> -	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
> -	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
> -	 */
> -
> -	do {
> -		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
> -			cpu_relax();
> -	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
> -
> -	return true;
> +	return pv_virt_spin_lock(lock);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>  }
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>  #endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
>  
>  #include <asm-generic/qspinlock.h>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
> index 26e4bd92f309..1be187ef8a38 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ bool pv_is_native_spin_unlock(void)
>  		__raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock;
>  }
>  
> +__visible bool __native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> +{
> +	return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
> +}
> +PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__native_virt_spin_lock);

I have some concern about the overhead of register saving/restoring have
on spin lock performance in case the kernel is under a non-KVM/Xen
hypervisor.

Cheers,
Longman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726777 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
>> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
>> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
>> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized
>> environment.
>>
>> Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users
>> to select an explicit behavior like bare metal.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h       |  5 ++++
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h |  1 +
>>  arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h      | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>  arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c  | 14 ++++++++++
>>  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c             |  2 ++
>>  5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>> @@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>>  	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> +{
>> +	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock);
>> +}
>> +
>>  #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>>  
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>> index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops {
>>  	void (*kick)(int cpu);
>>  
>>  	struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted;
>> +	struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock;
>>  } __no_randomize_layout;
>>  
>>  /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>  	smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> +{
>> +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
>> +	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
>> +	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
>> +	 */
>> +
>> +	do {
>> +		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
>> +			cpu_relax();
>> +	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
>> +
>> +	return true;
>> +}
>> +
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>>  extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
>>  extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void);
>> @@ -38,33 +57,32 @@ static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>>  {
>>  	return pv_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
>>  }
>> +
>> +void native_pv_lock_init(void) __init;
>>  #else
>>  static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>  {
>>  	native_queued_spin_unlock(lock);
>>  }
>> +
>> +static inline void native_pv_lock_init(void)
>> +{
>> +}
>>  #endif
>>  
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>>  #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>>  static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>  {
>> -	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>> -		return false;
> 
> Have you consider just add one more jump label here to skip
> virt_spin_lock when KVM or Xen want to do so?

Why? Did you look at patch 4? This is the way to do it...

> 
>> -
>> -	/*
>> -	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
>> -	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
>> -	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
>> -	 */
>> -
>> -	do {
>> -		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
>> -			cpu_relax();
>> -	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
>> -
>> -	return true;
>> +	return pv_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> +{
>> +	return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>>  }
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>>  #endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
>>  
>>  #include <asm-generic/qspinlock.h>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
>> index 26e4bd92f309..1be187ef8a38 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
>> @@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ bool pv_is_native_spin_unlock(void)
>>  		__raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock;
>>  }
>>  
>> +__visible bool __native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>> +{
>> +	return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>> +}
>> +PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__native_virt_spin_lock);
> 
> I have some concern about the overhead of register saving/restoring have
> on spin lock performance in case the kernel is under a non-KVM/Xen
> hypervisor.

We are on the slow path already.


Juergen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726783 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On 09/05/2017 10:18 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
>>> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
>>> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
>>> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized
>>> environment.
>>>
>>> Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users
>>> to select an explicit behavior like bare metal.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h       |  5 ++++
>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h |  1 +
>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h      | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>  arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c  | 14 ++++++++++
>>>  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c             |  2 ++
>>>  5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>> index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>> @@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>>>  	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>> +{
>>> +	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>>>  
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>> index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops {
>>>  	void (*kick)(int cpu);
>>>  
>>>  	struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted;
>>> +	struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock;
>>>  } __no_randomize_layout;
>>>  
>>>  /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>  	smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>>> +		return false;
>>> +
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
>>> +	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
>>> +	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
>>> +	 */
>>> +
>>> +	do {
>>> +		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
>>> +			cpu_relax();
>>> +	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
>>> +
>>> +	return true;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>>>  extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
>>>  extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void);
>>> @@ -38,33 +57,32 @@ static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>>>  {
>>>  	return pv_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
>>>  }
>>> +
>>> +void native_pv_lock_init(void) __init;
>>>  #else
>>>  static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>  {
>>>  	native_queued_spin_unlock(lock);
>>>  }
>>> +
>>> +static inline void native_pv_lock_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> +}
>>>  #endif
>>>  
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>>>  #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>>>  static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>  {
>>> -	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>>> -		return false;
>> Have you consider just add one more jump label here to skip
>> virt_spin_lock when KVM or Xen want to do so?
> Why? Did you look at patch 4? This is the way to do it...

I asked this because of my performance concern as stated later in the email.

>>> -
>>> -	/*
>>> -	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
>>> -	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
>>> -	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
>>> -	 */
>>> -
>>> -	do {
>>> -		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
>>> -			cpu_relax();
>>> -	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
>>> -
>>> -	return true;
>>> +	return pv_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>>> +}
>>> +#else
>>> +static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>> +{
>>> +	return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>>>  }
>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>>>  #endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */
>>>  
>>>  #include <asm-generic/qspinlock.h>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
>>> index 26e4bd92f309..1be187ef8a38 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c
>>> @@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ bool pv_is_native_spin_unlock(void)
>>>  		__raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +__visible bool __native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>> +{
>>> +	return native_virt_spin_lock(lock);
>>> +}
>>> +PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__native_virt_spin_lock);
>> I have some concern about the overhead of register saving/restoring have
>> on spin lock performance in case the kernel is under a non-KVM/Xen
>> hypervisor.
> We are on the slow path already.

That is true, but I still still believe there will be performance impact
on lock contention behavior where the slowpath will be used.

Cheers,
Longman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726786 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On 09/05/2017 10:24 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 10:18 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
>>>> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
>>>> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
>>>> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized
>>>> environment.
>>>>
>>>> Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users
>>>> to select an explicit behavior like bare metal.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h       |  5 ++++
>>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h |  1 +
>>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h      | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>>  arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c  | 14 ++++++++++
>>>>  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c             |  2 ++
>>>>  5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>>> index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>>> @@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>>>>  	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>>>>  
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>>> index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>>> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops {
>>>>  	void (*kick)(int cpu);
>>>>  
>>>>  	struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted;
>>>> +	struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock;
>>>>  } __no_randomize_layout;
>>>>  
>>>>  /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>>> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>>  	smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>>>> +		return false;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
>>>> +	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
>>>> +	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +
>>>> +	do {
>>>> +		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
>>>> +			cpu_relax();
>>>> +	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
>>>> +
>>>> +	return true;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>>>>  extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
>>>>  extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void);
>>>> @@ -38,33 +57,32 @@ static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	return pv_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
>>>>  }
>>>> +
>>>> +void native_pv_lock_init(void) __init;
>>>>  #else
>>>>  static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	native_queued_spin_unlock(lock);
>>>>  }
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline void native_pv_lock_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +}
>>>>  #endif
>>>>  
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>>>>  #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>>>>  static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>>>> -		return false;
>>> Have you consider just add one more jump label here to skip
>>> virt_spin_lock when KVM or Xen want to do so?
>> Why? Did you look at patch 4? This is the way to do it...
> I asked this because of my performance concern as stated later in the email.

For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
virt_spin_lock() a pv-op.

Cheers,
Longman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726793 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On 05/09/17 16:31, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/05/2017 10:24 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 09/05/2017 10:18 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
>>>>> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this
>>>>> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for
>>>>> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized
>>>>> environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users
>>>>> to select an explicit behavior like bare metal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h       |  5 ++++
>>>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h |  1 +
>>>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h      | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>>>  arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c  | 14 ++++++++++
>>>>>  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c             |  2 ++
>>>>>  5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>>>> index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h
>>>>> @@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>>>>>  	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu);
>>>>>  }
>>>>>  
>>>>> +static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>  #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */
>>>>>  
>>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>>>> index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>>>> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops {
>>>>>  	void (*kick)(int cpu);
>>>>>  
>>>>>  	struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted;
>>>>> +	struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock;
>>>>>  } __no_randomize_layout;
>>>>>  
>>>>>  /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>>>> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
>>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>>>  	smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0);
>>>>>  }
>>>>>  
>>>>> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>>>>> +		return false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/*
>>>>> +	 * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall
>>>>> +	 * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have
>>>>> +	 * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues.
>>>>> +	 */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	do {
>>>>> +		while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0)
>>>>> +			cpu_relax();
>>>>> +	} while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	return true;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>>>>>  extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
>>>>>  extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void);
>>>>> @@ -38,33 +57,32 @@ static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  	return pv_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
>>>>>  }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +void native_pv_lock_init(void) __init;
>>>>>  #else
>>>>>  static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  	native_queued_spin_unlock(lock);
>>>>>  }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static inline void native_pv_lock_init(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +}
>>>>>  #endif
>>>>>  
>>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>>>>>  #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS
>>>>>  static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>>>>>  {
>>>>> -	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
>>>>> -		return false;
>>>> Have you consider just add one more jump label here to skip
>>>> virt_spin_lock when KVM or Xen want to do so?
>>> Why? Did you look at patch 4? This is the way to do it...
>> I asked this because of my performance concern as stated later in the email.
> 
> For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
> more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
> virt_spin_lock() a pv-op.

Aah, okay.

Bare metal could make use of this jump label, too.

I'll have a try how it looks like.


Juergen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1727181 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

Guys, please trim email.

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
> more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
> virt_spin_lock() a pv-op.

I don't understand. What performance are you worried about. Native will
now do: "xor rax,rax; jnz some_cold_label" that's fairly trival code.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1727410 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On 09/06/2017 03:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Guys, please trim email.
>
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
>> more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
>> virt_spin_lock() a pv-op.
> I don't understand. What performance are you worried about. Native will
> now do: "xor rax,rax; jnz some_cold_label" that's fairly trival code.

It is not native that I am talking about. I am worry about VM with
non-Xen/KVM hypervisor where virt_spin_lock() will actually be called.
Now that function will become a callee-saved function call instead of
being inlined into the native slowpath function.

Cheers,
Longman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1727434 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:44:09AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/06/2017 03:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Guys, please trim email.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
> >> more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
> >> virt_spin_lock() a pv-op.
> > I don't understand. What performance are you worried about. Native will
> > now do: "xor rax,rax; jnz some_cold_label" that's fairly trival code.
> 
> It is not native that I am talking about. I am worry about VM with
> non-Xen/KVM hypervisor where virt_spin_lock() will actually be called.
> Now that function will become a callee-saved function call instead of
> being inlined into the native slowpath function.

But only if we actually end up using the test-and-set thing, because if
you have paravirt we end up using that.

And the test-and-set thing sucks anyway. But yes, you're right, that
case gets worse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1727446 — Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function

On 09/06/2017 09:06 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:44:09AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 09/06/2017 03:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> Guys, please trim email.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
>>>> more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
>>>> virt_spin_lock() a pv-op.
>>> I don't understand. What performance are you worried about. Native will
>>> now do: "xor rax,rax; jnz some_cold_label" that's fairly trival code.
>> It is not native that I am talking about. I am worry about VM with
>> non-Xen/KVM hypervisor where virt_spin_lock() will actually be called.
>> Now that function will become a callee-saved function call instead of
>> being inlined into the native slowpath function.
> But only if we actually end up using the test-and-set thing, because if
> you have paravirt we end up using that.

I am talking about scenario like a kernel with paravirt spinlock running
in a VM managed by VMware, for example. We may not want to penalize them
while there are alternatives with less penalty.

Cheers,
Longman

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web