There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal
behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" on XEN platform and
"hv_nopvspin" on HYPER_V).
That feature is missed on KVM, add a new parameter "nopvspin" to disable
PV spinlocks for KVM guest.
The new 'nopvspin' parameter will also replace Xen and Hyper-V specific
parameters in future patches.
Define variable nopvsin as global because it will be used in future patches
as above.
Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <[email protected]>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
Cc: Radim Krcmar <[email protected]>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <[email protected]>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <[email protected]>
Cc: Jim Mattson <[email protected]>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 5 +++++
arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 1 +
arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 7 +++++++
4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
index c7ac2f3..89d77ea 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -5330,6 +5330,11 @@
as generic guest with no PV drivers. Currently support
XEN HVM, KVM, HYPER_V and VMWARE guest.
+ nopvspin [X86,KVM]
+ Disables the qspinlock slow path using PV optimizations
+ which allow the hypervisor to 'idle' the guest on lock
+ contention.
+
xirc2ps_cs= [NET,PCMCIA]
Format:
<irq>,<irq_mask>,<io>,<full_duplex>,<do_sound>,<lockup_hack>[,<irq2>[,<irq3>[,<irq4>]]]
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
index 444d6fd..d86ab94 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h
@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ static __always_inline u32 queued_fetch_set_pending_acquire(struct qspinlock *lo
extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void);
extern void __pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val);
extern void __raw_callee_save___pv_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock);
+extern bool nopvspin;
#define queued_spin_unlock queued_spin_unlock
/**
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
index e820568..481d879 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
@@ -831,16 +831,23 @@ __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))
- return;
-
- if (kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME))
+ /*
+ * Don't use the pvqspinlock code if no KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT feature
+ * support, or there is REALTIME hints or only 1 vCPU.
+ */
+ if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT) ||
+ kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME) ||
+ num_possible_cpus() == 1) {
+ pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled\n");
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");
+ static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
return;
+ }
+ pr_info("PV spinlocks enabled\n");
__pv_init_lock_hash();
pv_ops.lock.queued_spin_lock_slowpath = __pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath;
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
index 2473f10..75193d6 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c
@@ -580,4 +580,11 @@ void queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val)
#include "qspinlock_paravirt.h"
#include "qspinlock.c"
+bool nopvspin __initdata;
+static __init int parse_nopvspin(char *arg)
+{
+ nopvspin = true;
+ return 0;
+}
+early_param("nopvspin", parse_nopvspin);
#endif
--
1.8.3.1
On 10/3/19 10:02 AM, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
> {
> - /* Does host kernel support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT? */
> - if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT))
> - return;
> -
> - if (kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME))
> + /*
> + * Don't use the pvqspinlock code if no KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT feature
> + * support, or there is REALTIME hints or only 1 vCPU.
> + */
> + if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT) ||
> + kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME) ||
> + num_possible_cpus() == 1) {
> + pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled\n");
> 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");
> + static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
Would it make sense to bring here the other site where the key is
disabled (in kvm_smp_prepare_cpus())?
(and, in fact, shouldn't all of the checks that result in early return
above disable the key?)
-boris
> return;
> + }
> + pr_info("PV spinlocks enabled\n");
>
> __pv_init_lock_hash();
> pv_ops.lock.queued_spin_lock_slowpath = __pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath;
>
On 2019/10/4 22:52, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 10/3/19 10:02 AM, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>> void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
>> {
>> - /* Does host kernel support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT? */
>> - if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT))
>> - return;
>> -
>> - if (kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME))
>> + /*
>> + * Don't use the pvqspinlock code if no KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT feature
>> + * support, or there is REALTIME hints or only 1 vCPU.
>> + */
>> + if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT) ||
>> + kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME) ||
>> + num_possible_cpus() == 1) {
>> + pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled\n");
>> 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");
>> + static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
> Would it make sense to bring here the other site where the key is
> disabled (in kvm_smp_prepare_cpus())?
Thanks for point out, I'll do it. Just not clear if I should do that in a separate patch,
there is a history about that code:
Its original place was here and then moved to kvm_smp_prepare_cpus() by below commit:
34226b6b ("KVM: X86: Fix setup the virt_spin_lock_key before static key get initialized")
which fixed jump_label_init() calling late issue.
Then 8990cac6 ("x86/jump_label: Initialize static branching early") move jump_label_init()
early, so commit 34226b6b could be reverted.
>
> (and, in fact, shouldn't all of the checks that result in early return
> above disable the key?)
I think we should enable he key for !kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT) case,
there is lock holder preemption issue as qspinlock is fair lock, virt_spin_lock()
is an optimization to that, imaging one pcpu running 10 vcpus of same guest
contending a same lock.
For kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME) case, hypervisor hints there is
no preemption and we should disable virt_spin_lock_key to use native qspinlock.
For the UP case, we don't care virt_spin_lock_key value.
For nopvspin case, we intentionally check native qspinlock code performance,
compare it with PV qspinlock, etc. So virt_spin_lock() optimization should be disabled.
Let me know if anything wrong with above understanding. Thanks
Zhenzhong
On 10/6/19 3:49 AM, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> On 2019/10/4 22:52, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/19 10:02 AM, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>> void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
>>> {
>>> - /* Does host kernel support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT? */
>>> - if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT))
>>> - return;
>>> -
>>> - if (kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME))
>>> + /*
>>> + * Don't use the pvqspinlock code if no KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT
>>> feature
>>> + * support, or there is REALTIME hints or only 1 vCPU.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT) ||
>>> + kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME) ||
>>> + num_possible_cpus() == 1) {
>>> + pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled\n");
>>> 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");
>>> + static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
>> Would it make sense to bring here the other site where the key is
>> disabled (in kvm_smp_prepare_cpus())?
>
> Thanks for point out, I'll do it. Just not clear if I should do that
> in a separate patch,
> there is a history about that code:
>
> Its original place was here and then moved to kvm_smp_prepare_cpus()
> by below commit:
> 34226b6b ("KVM: X86: Fix setup the virt_spin_lock_key before static
> key get initialized")
> which fixed jump_label_init() calling late issue.
>
> Then 8990cac6 ("x86/jump_label: Initialize static branching early")
> move jump_label_init()
> early, so commit 34226b6b could be reverted.
Which is similar to what you did earlier for Xen.
>
>>
>> (and, in fact, shouldn't all of the checks that result in early return
>> above disable the key?)
>
> I think we should enable he key for
> !kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT) case,
> there is lock holder preemption issue as qspinlock is fair lock,
> virt_spin_lock()
> is an optimization to that, imaging one pcpu running 10 vcpus of same
> guest
> contending a same lock.
Right. I conflated pv lock and virt_spin_lock_key, and that is wrong.
-boris
>
> For kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME) case, hypervisor hints there is
> no preemption and we should disable virt_spin_lock_key to use native
> qspinlock.
>
> For the UP case, we don't care virt_spin_lock_key value.
>
> For nopvspin case, we intentionally check native qspinlock code
> performance,
> compare it with PV qspinlock, etc. So virt_spin_lock() optimization
> should be disabled.
>
> Let me know if anything wrong with above understanding. Thanks
>
> Zhenzhong
>
On 2019/10/7 22:46, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 10/6/19 3:49 AM, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>> On 2019/10/4 22:52, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/19 10:02 AM, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>>> void __init kvm_spinlock_init(void)
>>>> {
>>>> - /* Does host kernel support KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT? */
>>>> - if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT))
>>>> - return;
>>>> -
>>>> - if (kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME))
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Don't use the pvqspinlock code if no KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT
>>>> feature
>>>> + * support, or there is REALTIME hints or only 1 vCPU.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (!kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT) ||
>>>> + kvm_para_has_hint(KVM_HINTS_REALTIME) ||
>>>> + num_possible_cpus() == 1) {
>>>> + pr_info("PV spinlocks disabled\n");
>>>> 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");
>>>> + static_branch_disable(&virt_spin_lock_key);
>>> Would it make sense to bring here the other site where the key is
>>> disabled (in kvm_smp_prepare_cpus())?
>> Thanks for point out, I'll do it. Just not clear if I should do that
>> in a separate patch,
>> there is a history about that code:
>>
>> Its original place was here and then moved to kvm_smp_prepare_cpus()
>> by below commit:
>> 34226b6b ("KVM: X86: Fix setup the virt_spin_lock_key before static
>> key get initialized")
>> which fixed jump_label_init() calling late issue.
>>
>> Then 8990cac6 ("x86/jump_label: Initialize static branching early")
>> move jump_label_init()
>> early, so commit 34226b6b could be reverted.
> Which is similar to what you did earlier for Xen.
You remember that, ok, I'll do the same for KVM.
Thanks
Zhenzhong