Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 28 Apr 2022 01:55:12 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc:     Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>,
        eperezma <eperezma@redhat.com>, Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 6/9] virtio-ccw: implement synchronize_cbs()
Message-ID: <20220428015318-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <ba0c3977-c471-3275-2327-c5910cdd506a@redhat.com>
 <20220425235134-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <20220425235415-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <87o80n7soq.fsf@redhat.com>
 <20220426124243-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <87ilqu7u6w.fsf@redhat.com>
 <20220428044315.3945e660.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
 <CACGkMEudDf=XXhV2tV+xZ586AnDyrQEotGAiSQZ4k1CTAWHZJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220428012156-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CACGkMEsd+WHp=LN0BnnDKfzv+nbS2hjgVC-tdemZWuPTc60HBQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACGkMEsd+WHp=LN0BnnDKfzv+nbS2hjgVC-tdemZWuPTc60HBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:51:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 1:24 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:04:41AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > But my guess is that rwlock + some testing for the legacy indicator case
> > > > just to double check if there is a heavy regression despite of our
> > > > expectations to see none should do the trick.
> > >
> > > I suggest this, rwlock (for not airq) seems better than spinlock, but
> > > at worst case it will cause cache line bouncing. But I wonder if it's
> > > noticeable (anyhow it has been used for airq).
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > Which existing rwlock does airq use right now? Can we take it to sync?
> 
> It's the rwlock in airq_info, it has already been used in this patch.
> 
>                 write_lock(&info->lock);
>                 write_unlock(&info->lock);
> 
> But the problem is, it looks to me there could be a case that airq is
> not used, (virtio_ccw_int_hander()). That's why the patch use a
> spinlock, it could be optimized with using a rwlock as well.
> 
> Thanks

Ah, right. So let's take that on the legacy path too and Halil promises
to test to make sure performance isn't impacted too badly?

> >
> > --
> > MST
> >