Re: [PATCH RFC V6 0/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri
Date: Sat Mar 31 2012 - 00:08:09 EST
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2012-03-31 00:07:58]:
> I know that Peter is going to go berserk on me, but if we are running
> a paravirt guest then it's simple to provide a mechanism which allows
> the host (aka hypervisor) to check that in the guest just by looking
> at some global state.
> So if a guest exits due to an external event it's easy to inspect the
> state of that guest and avoid to schedule away when it was interrupted
> in a spinlock held section. That guest/host shared state needs to be
> modified to indicate the guest to invoke an exit when the last nested
> lock has been released.
I had attempted something like that long back:
The issue is with ticketlocks though. VCPUs could go into a spin w/o
a lock being held by anybody. Say VCPUs 1-99 try to grab a lock in
that order (on a host with one cpu). VCPU1 wins (after VCPU0 releases it)
and releases the lock. VCPU1 is next eligible to take the lock. If
that is not scheduled early enough by host, then remaining vcpus would keep
spinning (even though lock is technically not held by anybody) w/o making
In that situation, what we really need is for the guest to hint to host
scheduler to schedule VCPU1 early (via yield_to or something similar).
The current pv-spinlock patches however does not track which vcpu is
spinning at what head of the ticketlock. I suppose we can consider
that optimization in future and see how much benefit it provides (over
plain yield/sleep the way its done now).
Do you see any issues if we take in what we have today and address the
finer-grained optimization as next step?
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/