|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks
|
To: |
Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Paravirtual spinlocks |
|
From: |
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:37:54 -0700 |
|
Cc: |
Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@xxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Thomas Friebel <thomas.friebel@xxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:38:29 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<200807081029.19242.rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<20080707190749.299430659@xxxxxxxx> <200807081029.19242.rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) |
Rusty Russell wrote:
On Tuesday 08 July 2008 05:07:49 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
At the most recent Xen Summit, Thomas Friebel presented a paper
("Preventing Guests from Spinning Around",
http://xen.org/files/xensummitboston08/LHP.pdf) investigating the
interactions between spinlocks and virtual machines. Specifically, he
looked at what happens when a lock-holding VCPU gets involuntarily
preempted.
I find it interesting that gang scheduling the guest was not suggested as an
obvious solution.
It's an obvious answer, but not an obvious solution. You trade off
wasting time spinning vs wasting time waiting for N vcpus to be free for
scheduling. Or something; seems much more complex, particularly if you
can do a small guest tweak to solve the problem.
Anyway, concept looks fine; lguest's solution is more elegant of course :)
You could remove all mutable state and call it "erlang".
A little disappointing that you can't patch your version inline.
Spinlock code isn't inlined currently, so I hadn't considered it. The
fast path code for both lock and unlock is nearly small enough to
consider it, but it seems a bit fiddly.
If the "spin_lock" and "spin_unlock" functions were inlined functions
which called the out of line __raw_spin_lock/unlock functions, then
after patching they would result in a direct call to the backend lock
functions, which would be exactly equivalent to what happens now (since
I hook __raw_spin_lock into calls via pv_lock_ops).
J
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
Home