Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] x86/kvm: Add "nopvspin" parameter to disable PV spinlocks

[Zhenzhong Duan]

On 2019/10/13 17:02, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
...snip
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> index ef836d6..6e14bd4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> @@ -825,18 +825,31 @@ __visible bool __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu)
>    */
>   void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
>   {
> -	/* Does host kernel support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT? */
> -	if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT))
> +	/*
> +	 * Disable PV qspinlocks if host kernel doesn't support
> +	 * KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT feature or there is only 1 vCPU.
> +	 * virt_spin_lock_key is enabled to avoid lock holder
> +	 * preemption issue.
> +	 */
> +	if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT) ||
> +	    num_possible_cpus() == 1) {
> +		pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled\n");
> Why don't we need static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key) here?

Thanks for review.

I have a brief explanation in above comment area.

Boris also raised the same question in v4 and see my detailed explanation

in https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/6/39

> Also, as you're printing the exact reason for PV spinlocks disablement
> in other cases, I'd suggest separating "no host support" and "single
> CPU" cases.

Will do after reaching a consensus on your first question.

> >   		return;
> > +	}
> >   
> >   	if (kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME)) {
> > +		pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled with KVM_HINTS_REALTIME hints.\n");
> >   		static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
> >   		return;
> >   	}
> >   
> > -	/* Don't use the pvqspinlock code if there is only 1 vCPU. */
> > -	if (num_possible_cpus() == 1)
> > +	if (nopvspin) {
> > +		pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled forced by \"nopvspin\" parameter.\n");
> Nit: to make it sound better a comma is missing between 'disabled' and
> 'forced', or
>
> "PV spinlocks forcefully disabled by ..." if you prefer.

Will do.

Zhenzhong