[PATCH v2 0/4] implement vcpu preempted check

[Waiman Long]

On 07/12/2016 12:16 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 11/07/16 17:10, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 07/06/2016 02:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:43:07AM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote:
>>>> change fomr v1:
>>>>      a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted
>>>>      skip mahcine type check on ppc, and add config. remove dedicated
>>>> macro.
>>>>      add one patch to drop overload of rwsem_spin_on_owner and
>>>> mutex_spin_on_owner.
>>>>      add more comments
>>>>      thanks boqun and Peter's suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> This patch set aims to fix lock holder preemption issues.
>>>>
>>>> test-case:
>>>> perf record -a perf bench sched messaging -g 400 -p&&   perf report
>>>>
>>>> 18.09%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] osq_lock
>>>> 12.28%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] rwsem_spin_on_owner
>>>>    5.27%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] mutex_unlock
>>>>    3.89%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] wait_consider_task
>>>>    3.64%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] _raw_write_lock_irq
>>>>    3.41%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] mutex_spin_on_owner.is
>>>>    2.49%  sched-messaging  [kernel.vmlinux]  [k] system_call
>>>>
>>>> We introduce interface bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) and use it in
>>>> some spin
>>>> loops of osq_lock, rwsem_spin_on_owner and mutex_spin_on_owner.
>>>> These spin_on_onwer variant also cause rcu stall before we apply this
>>>> patch set
>>>>
>>> Paolo, could you help out with an (x86) KVM interface for this?
>>>
>>> Waiman, could you see if you can utilize this to get rid of the
>>> SPIN_THRESHOLD in qspinlock_paravirt?
>> That API is certainly useful to make the paravirt spinlock perform
>> better. However, I am not sure if we can completely get rid of the
>> SPIN_THRESHOLD at this point. It is not just the kvm, the xen code need
>> to be modified as well.
> This should be rather easy. The relevant information is included in the
> runstate data mapped into kernel memory. I can provide a patch for Xen
> if needed.
>
>
> Juergen

Thanks for the offering. We will wait until Xinhui's patch comes through 
before working on the next step.

As for the elimination of SPIN_THRESHOLD, the queue head may not always 
have the right CPU number of the lock holder. So I don't think we can 
eliminate that for the queue head spinning. I think we can eliminates 
the SPIN_THRESHOLD spinning for the other queue node vCPUs.

Cheers,
Longman