Message-ID: <54E74FED.2090203@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:17:01 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
        Bogdan Purcareata <bogdan.purcareata@freescale.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, scottwood@freescale.com,
        mihai.caraman@freescale.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc/kvm: Enable running guests on RT Linux
References: <1424251955-308-1-git-send-email-bogdan.purcareata@freescale.com> <54E73A6C.9080500@suse.de> <54E740E7.5090806@redhat.com> <54E74A8C.30802@linutronix.de> <54E74B58.90706@redhat.com> <54E74D5E.1050209@linutronix.de> <54E74E77.2070503@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <54E74E77.2070503@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1878
Lines: 47

On 02/20/2015 04:10 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 20/02/2015 16:06, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> On 02/20/2015 03:57 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
>>> Yes, but large latencies just mean the code has to be rewritten (x86
>>> doesn't anymore do event injection in an atomic regions for example).
>>> Until it is, using raw_spin_lock is correct.
>>
>> It does not sound like it. It sounds more like disabling interrupts to
>> get things run faster and then limit it on a different corner to not
>> blow up everything.
> 
> "This patchset enables running KVM SMP guests with external interrupts
> on an underlying RT-enabled Linux. Previous to this patch, a guest with
> in-kernel MPIC emulation could easily panic the kernel due to preemption
> when delivering IPIs and external interrupts, because of the openpic
> spinlock becoming a sleeping mutex on PREEMPT_RT_FULL Linux".
> 
>> Max latencies was decreased "Max latency (us)  70        62" and that
>> is why this is done? For 8 us and possible DoS in case there are too
>> many cpus?
> 
> My understanding is that:
> 
> 1) netperf can get you a BUG KVM, and raw_spinlock fixes that

May I please see a backtrace with context tracking which states where
the interrupts / preemption gets disabled and where the lock was taken?

I'm not totally against this patch I just want to make sure this is not
a blind raw conversation to shup up the warning the kernel throws.

> 2) cyclictest did not trigger the BUG, and you can also get reduced
> latency from using raw_spinlock.
> 
> I think we agree that (2) is not a factor in accepting the patch.
good :)

> 
> Paolo
> 
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/