| 
         
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 09/14] xen/pvticketlock: Xen		implementation 
 
| 
To:  | 
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Subject:  | 
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 09/14] xen/pvticketlock: Xen		implementation for PV ticket locks | 
 
| 
From:  | 
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Date:  | 
Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:41:07 -0800 | 
 
| 
Cc:  | 
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>,	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx>,	Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,	Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,	Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,	Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>,	xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx,	Linux Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Delivery-date:  | 
Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:42:03 -0800 | 
 
| 
Envelope-to:  | 
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 
 
| 
In-reply-to:  | 
<4CE3BDCF0200007800022BF1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
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:  | 
<cover.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx><cover.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>	<aa32da076143b8e13c23c1f589d7e6cbedb22907.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>	<4CE39C3C0200007800022AE2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>	<4CE397E7.2010107@xxxxxxxx> <4CE3A714.9010509@xxxxxxxx>	<4CE3BDCF0200007800022BF1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | 
 
| 
Sender:  | 
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 
 
| 
User-agent:  | 
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;	rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.1.6-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre	Thunderbird/3.1.6 | 
 
 
 
On 11/17/2010 02:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Actually, on second thoughts, maybe it doesn't matter so much.  The main
>> issue is making sure that the interrupt will make the VCPU drop out of
>> xen_poll_irq() - if it happens before xen_poll_irq(), it should leave
>> the event pending, which will cause the poll to return immediately.  I
>> hope.  Certainly disabling interrupts for some of the function will make
>> it easier to analyze with respect to interrupt nesting.
> That's not my main concern. Instead, what if you get interrupted
> anywhere here, the interrupt handler tries to acquire another
> spinlock and also has to go into the slow path? It'll overwrite part
> or all of the outer context's state.
That doesn't matter if the outer context doesn't end up blocking.  If it
has already blocked then it will unblock as a result of the interrupt;
if it hasn't yet blocked, then the inner context will leave the event
pending and cause it to not block.  Either way, it no longer uses or
needs that per-cpu state: it will return to the spin loop and (maybe)
get re-entered, setting it all up again.
I think there is a problem with the code as posted because it sets up
the percpu data before clearing the pending event, so it can end up
blocking with bad percpu data.
>> Another issue may be making sure the writes and reads of "w->want" and
>> "w->lock" are ordered properly to make sure that xen_unlock_kick() never
>> sees an inconsistent view of the (lock,want) tuple.  The risk being that
>> xen_unlock_kick() sees a random, spurious (lock,want) pairing and sends
>> the kick event to the wrong VCPU, leaving the deserving one hung.
> Yes, proper operation sequence (and barriers) is certainly
> required here. If you allowed nesting, this may even become
> simpler (as you'd have a single write making visible the new
> "head" pointer, after having written all relevant fields of the
> new "head" structure).
Yes, simple nesting should be quite straightforward (ie allowing an
interrupt handler to take some other lock than the one the outer context
is waiting on).
    J
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
 |   
 
 | 
    |