Re: [PATCH 1/4, v2] x86: enlightenment for ticket spin locks -base implementation
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Jun 30 2010 - 05:12:16 EST
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 10:00 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 30.06.10 at 10:05, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 15:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Add optional (alternative instructions based) callout hooks to the
> >> contended ticket lock and the ticket unlock paths, to allow hypervisor
> >> specific code to be used for reducing/eliminating the bad effects
> >> ticket locks have on performance when running virtualized.
> > Uhm, I'd much rather see a single alternative implementation, not a
> > per-hypervisor lock implementation.
> How would you imaging this to work? I can't see how the mechanism
> could be hypervisor agnostic. Just look at the Xen implementation
> (patch 2) - do you really see room for meaningful abstraction there?
I tried not to, it made my eyes bleed..
But from what I hear all virt people are suffering from spinlocks (and
fair spinlocks in particular), so I was thinking it'd be a good idea to
get all interested parties to collaborate on one. Fragmentation like
this hardly ever works out well.
> Not the least that not every hypervisor may even have a way to
> poll for events (like Xen does), in which case a simple yield may be
> needed instead.
No idea what you're talking about, I think you assume I actually know
something about Xen or virt..
> >> For the moment, this isn't intended to be used together with pv-ops,
> >> but this is just to simplify initial integration. The ultimate goal
> >> for this should still be to replace pv-ops spinlocks.
> > So why not start by removing that?
> Because I wouldn't get around to test it within the time constraints
> I have?
I'd say that removing basically dead code (the paravirt spinlocks) the
code you'd be changing was easier to follow and thus your patches would
be done quicker?
> >> +#define ALTERNATIVE_TICKET_LOCK \
> > But but but, the alternative isn't a ticket lock..!?
> ??? Of course it is.
Ah, right, after looking a bit more at patch 2 I see you indeed
implement a ticket like lock. Although why you need both a ticket and a
FIFO list is beyond me.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/