Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 18 Jan 2019 21:06:57 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        SRINIVAS <srinivas.eeda@oracle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: Question about qspinlock nest
Message-ID: <20190118200657.GE27931@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <e784a592-5dec-b0b3-6c70-d9ef775621d5@oracle.com>
 <910e9fb6-d0df-4711-fe2b-244b3c20eb82@redhat.com>
 <d06126a1-1db8-f937-2084-2c1234b6f56f@arm.com>
 <20190110201217.GH2861@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <a270215d-ec5a-8b8a-3786-c0480b640abc@arm.com>
 <20190114131613.GB10486@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <830db851-d5cb-4081-8d72-e3f3a0a282df@arm.com>
 <20190118100229.GB27931@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <abf2dfe7-e148-b011-764d-b9effa573d5d@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <abf2dfe7-e148-b011-764d-b9effa573d5d@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 09:50:12AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 01/18/2019 05:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >> e.g. We can't take an SError during the SError handler.
> >>
> >> But we can take this SError/NMI on another CPU while the first one is still
> >> running the handler.
> >>
> >> These multiple NMIlike notifications mean having multiple locks/fixmap-slots,
> >> one per notification. This is where the qspinlock node limit comes in, as we
> >> could have more than 4 contexts.
> > Right; so Waiman was going to do a patch that reverts to test-and-set or
> > something along those lines once we hit the queue limit, which seems
> > like a good way out. Actually hitting that nesting level should be
> > exceedingly rare.
> 
> Yes, I am working on a patch to support arbitrary levels of nesting. It
> is easy for PV qspinlock as lock stealing is supported.
> 
> For native qspinlock, we cannot do lock stealing without incurring a
> certain amount of overhead in the regular slowpath code. It was up to
> 10% in my own testing. So I am exploring an alternative that can do the
> job without incurring any noticeable performance degradation in the
> slowpath. I ran into a race condition which I am still trying to find
> out where that comes from. Hopefully, I will have something to post next
> week.

Where does the overhead come from? Surely that's not just checking that
bound?