2017-11-09 00:55-0800, Eduardo Valentin:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 06:36:52PM +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > 2017-11-06 12:26-0800, Eduardo Valentin:
> > > Currently, the existing qspinlock implementation will fallback to
> > > test-and-set if the hypervisor has not set the PV_UNHALT flag.
> > >
> > > This patch gives the opportunity to guest kernels to select
> > > between test-and-set and the regular queueu fair lock implementation
> > > based on the PV_DEDICATED KVM feature flag. When the PV_DEDICATED
> > > flag is not set, the code will still fall back to test-and-set,
> > > but when the PV_DEDICATED flag is set, the code will use
> > > the regular queue spinlock implementation.
> > >
> > > With this patch, when in autoselect mode, the guest will
> > > use the default spinlock implementation based on host feature
> > > flags as follows:
> > >
> > > PV_DEDICATED = 1, PV_UNHALT = anything: default is qspinlock
> > > PV_DEDICATED = 0, PV_UNHALT = 1: default is pvqspinlock
> > > PV_DEDICATED = 0, PV_UNHALT = 0: default is tas
> > >
> > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: "Radim Krčmář" <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Waiman Long <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Cc: Jan H. Schoenherr <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Anthony Liguori <[email protected]>
> > > Suggested-by: Matt Wilson <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > V3:
> > > - When PV_DEDICATED is set (1), qspinlock is selected,
> > > regardless of the value of PV_UNHAULT. Suggested by Paolo Bonzini.
> > > - Refreshed on top of tip/master.
> > > V2:
> > > - rebase on top of tip/master
> > >
> > > Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt | 6 ++++++
> > > arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 4 ++++
> > > arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h | 1 +
> > > arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 2 ++
> > > 4 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt
> > > index 3c65feb..117066a 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt
> > > @@ -54,6 +54,12 @@ KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT || 7 || guest checks this feature bit
> > > || || before enabling paravirtualized
> > > || || spinlock support.
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > +KVM_FEATURE_PV_DEDICATED || 8 || guest checks this feature bit
> > > + || || to determine if they run on
> > > + || || dedicated vCPUs, allowing opti-
> > > + || || mizations such as usage of
> > > + || || qspinlocks.
> > > +------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > KVM_FEATURE_CLOCKSOURCE_STABLE_BIT || 24 || host will warn if no guest-side
> > > || || per-cpu warps are expected in
> > > || || kvmclock.
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> > > index 5e16b5d..de42694 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
> > > @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
> > > #define _ASM_X86_QSPINLOCK_H
> > >
> > > #include <linux/jump_label.h>
> > > +#include <linux/kvm_para.h>
> > > +
> > > #include <asm/cpufeature.h>
> > > #include <asm-generic/qspinlock_types.h>
> > > #include <asm/paravirt.h>
> > > @@ -58,6 +60,8 @@ static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock)
> > > if (!static_branch_likely(&virt_spin_lock_key))
> > > return false;
> > >
> > > + if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_DEDICATED))
> > > + return false;
> >
> > Hm, every spinlock slowpath calls cpuid, which causes a VM exit, so I
> > wouldn't expect it to be faster than the existing implementations.
> > (Using the static key would be better.)
> >
> > How does this patch perform compared to user-forced qspinlock and hybrid
> > pvqspinlock?
>
> This patch should have same effect as user-forced qspinlock.
This is what I'm doubting, because the patch is adding about two
thousand cycles to every spinlock-taken path.
Doesn't this patch yield better results?
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
index 3df743b60c80..d9225e48c11a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
@@ -676,6 +676,12 @@ void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
{
if (!kvm_para_available())
return;
+
+ if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_DEDICATED)) {
+ static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
+ return;
+ }
+
/* Does host kernel support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT? */
if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT))
return;
> However, the key aspect
> here is this patch gives a way for the host to instruct the guest to use qspinlock.
> Even with Longman's patch which allows guest to select the spinlock implementation,
> there should still be the auto-select mode. In such mode, PV_DEDICATED should
> allow the host to get the guest to use qspinlock, without, the guest will fallback
> to tas when PV_UNHALT == 0.
I agree that a flag can be useful for certains setups.
From 1583592449275202699@xxx Thu Nov 09 12:44:06 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583352031107436177
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread