Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 23:11:07 +0900
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, mingo@elte.hu,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com,
        yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: make callers check lock contention for
 cond_resched_lock()
Message-Id: <20120503231107.e8c5a5dde90e109e570ba32e@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FA27E5E.5000002@redhat.com>
References: <20120503171244.2debdd80931ccf35f387c5fe@gmail.com>
	<1336034127.13683.197.camel@twins>
	<20120503212244.6abbfa8bc3f46a7f7a932bb7@gmail.com>
	<1336048150.22523.17.camel@twins>
	<4FA27E5E.5000002@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1720
Lines: 48

On Thu, 03 May 2012 15:47:26 +0300
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 05/03/2012 03:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 21:22 +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > > Although the real use case is out of this RFC patch, we are now discussing
> > > a case in which we may hold a spin_lock for long time, ms order, depending
> > > on workload;  and in that case, other threads -- VCPU threads -- should be
> > > given higher priority for that problematic lock. 
> >
> > Firstly, if you can hold a lock that long, it shouldn't be a spinlock,
> 
> In fact with your mm preemptibility work it can be made into a mutex, if
> the entire mmu notifier path can be done in task context.  However it
> ends up a strange mutex - you can sleep while holding it but you may not
> allocate, because you might recurse into an mmu notifier again.
> 
> Most uses of the lock only involve tweaking some bits though.

I might find a real way to go.

After your "mmu_lock -- TLB-flush" decoupling, we can change the current
get_dirty work flow like this:

	for ... {
		take mmu_lock
		for 4K*8 gfns {		// with 4KB dirty_bitmap_buffer
			xchg dirty bits	// 64/32 gfns at once
			write protect them
		}
		release mmu_lock
		copy_to_user
	}
	TLB flush

This reduces the size of dirty_bitmap_buffer and does not hold mmu_lock
so long.

I should have think of a way not to hold the spin_lock so long as Peter
said.  My lack of thinking might be the real problem.

Thanks,
	Takuya
--
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/