On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal > behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this > has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for > qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized > environment. > > Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users > to select an explicit behavior like bare metal. > > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 5 ++++ > arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h | 1 + > arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c | 14 ++++++++++ > arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 2 ++ > 5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h > index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h > @@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu) > return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu); > } > > +static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) > +{ > + return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock); > +} > + > #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */ > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h > index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h > @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops { > void (*kick)(int cpu); > > struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted; > + struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock; > } __no_randomize_layout; > > /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h > index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h > @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock) > smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0); > } > > +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) > +{ > + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)) > + return false; > + > + /* > + * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall > + * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have > + * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues. > + */ > + > + do { > + while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0) > + cpu_relax(); > + } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0); > + > + return true; > +} > + > #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS > extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val); > extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void); > @@ -38,33 +57,32 @@ static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu) > { > return pv_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu); > } > + > +void native_pv_lock_init(void) __init; > #else > static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock) > { > native_queued_spin_unlock(lock); > } > + > +static inline void native_pv_lock_init(void) > +{ > +} > #endif > > #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT > #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock > +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS > static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) > { > - if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)) > - return false;Have you consider just add one more jump label here to skip virt_spin_lock when KVM or Xen want to do so?> - > - /* > - * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall > - * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have > - * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues. > - */ > - > - do { > - while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0) > - cpu_relax(); > - } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0); > - > - return true; > + return pv_virt_spin_lock(lock); > +} > +#else > +static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) > +{ > + return native_virt_spin_lock(lock); > } > +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */ > #endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */ > > #include <asm-generic/qspinlock.h> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c > index 26e4bd92f309..1be187ef8a38 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c > @@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ bool pv_is_native_spin_unlock(void) > __raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock; > } > > +__visible bool __native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) > +{ > + return native_virt_spin_lock(lock); > +} > +PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__native_virt_spin_lock);I have some concern about the overhead of register saving/restoring have on spin lock performance in case the kernel is under a non-KVM/Xen hypervisor. Cheers, Longman
Juergen Gross
2017-Sep-05 14:18 UTC
[PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function
On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote:> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: >> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal >> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this >> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for >> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized >> environment. >> >> Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users >> to select an explicit behavior like bare metal. >> >> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> >> --- >> arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 5 ++++ >> arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h | 1 + >> arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >> arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c | 14 ++++++++++ >> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 2 ++ >> 5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h >> index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h >> @@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu) >> return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu); >> } >> >> +static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) >> +{ >> + return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock); >> +} >> + >> #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */ >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h >> index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h >> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops { >> void (*kick)(int cpu); >> >> struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted; >> + struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock; >> } __no_randomize_layout; >> >> /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h >> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h >> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock) >> smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0); >> } >> >> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) >> +{ >> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)) >> + return false; >> + >> + /* >> + * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall >> + * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have >> + * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues. >> + */ >> + >> + do { >> + while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0) >> + cpu_relax(); >> + } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0); >> + >> + return true; >> +} >> + >> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS >> extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val); >> extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void); >> @@ -38,33 +57,32 @@ static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu) >> { >> return pv_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu); >> } >> + >> +void native_pv_lock_init(void) __init; >> #else >> static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock) >> { >> native_queued_spin_unlock(lock); >> } >> + >> +static inline void native_pv_lock_init(void) >> +{ >> +} >> #endif >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT >> #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS >> static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) >> { >> - if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)) >> - return false; > > Have you consider just add one more jump label here to skip > virt_spin_lock when KVM or Xen want to do so?Why? Did you look at patch 4? This is the way to do it...> >> - >> - /* >> - * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall >> - * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have >> - * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues. >> - */ >> - >> - do { >> - while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0) >> - cpu_relax(); >> - } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0); >> - >> - return true; >> + return pv_virt_spin_lock(lock); >> +} >> +#else >> +static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) >> +{ >> + return native_virt_spin_lock(lock); >> } >> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */ >> #endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */ >> >> #include <asm-generic/qspinlock.h> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c >> index 26e4bd92f309..1be187ef8a38 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c >> @@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ bool pv_is_native_spin_unlock(void) >> __raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock; >> } >> >> +__visible bool __native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) >> +{ >> + return native_virt_spin_lock(lock); >> +} >> +PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__native_virt_spin_lock); > > I have some concern about the overhead of register saving/restoring have > on spin lock performance in case the kernel is under a non-KVM/Xen > hypervisor.We are on the slow path already. Juergen
On 09/05/2017 10:18 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:> On 05/09/17 16:10, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 09/05/2017 09:24 AM, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> There are cases where a guest tries to switch spinlocks to bare metal >>> behavior (e.g. by setting "xen_nopvspin" boot parameter). Today this >>> has the downside of falling back to unfair test and set scheme for >>> qspinlocks due to virt_spin_lock() detecting the virtualized >>> environment. >>> >>> Make virt_spin_lock() a paravirt operation in order to enable users >>> to select an explicit behavior like bare metal. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> >>> --- >>> arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 5 ++++ >>> arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h | 1 + >>> arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >>> arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c | 14 ++++++++++ >>> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 2 ++ >>> 5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h >>> index c25dd22f7c70..d9e954fb37df 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h >>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h >>> @@ -725,6 +725,11 @@ static __always_inline bool pv_vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu) >>> return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.vcpu_is_preempted, cpu); >>> } >>> >>> +static __always_inline bool pv_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) >>> +{ >>> + return PVOP_CALLEE1(bool, pv_lock_ops.virt_spin_lock, lock); >>> +} >>> + >>> #endif /* SMP && PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */ >>> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h >>> index 19efefc0e27e..928f5e7953a7 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h >>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h >>> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ struct pv_lock_ops { >>> void (*kick)(int cpu); >>> >>> struct paravirt_callee_save vcpu_is_preempted; >>> + struct paravirt_callee_save virt_spin_lock; >>> } __no_randomize_layout; >>> >>> /* This contains all the paravirt structures: we get a convenient >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h >>> index 48a706f641f2..fbd98896385c 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h >>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h >>> @@ -17,6 +17,25 @@ static inline void native_queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock) >>> smp_store_release((u8 *)lock, 0); >>> } >>> >>> +static inline bool native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) >>> +{ >>> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall >>> + * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have >>> + * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues. >>> + */ >>> + >>> + do { >>> + while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0) >>> + cpu_relax(); >>> + } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0); >>> + >>> + return true; >>> +} >>> + >>> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS >>> extern void native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val); >>> extern void __pv_init_lock_hash(void); >>> @@ -38,33 +57,32 @@ static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(long cpu) >>> { >>> return pv_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu); >>> } >>> + >>> +void native_pv_lock_init(void) __init; >>> #else >>> static inline void queued_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock) >>> { >>> native_queued_spin_unlock(lock); >>> } >>> + >>> +static inline void native_pv_lock_init(void) >>> +{ >>> +} >>> #endif >>> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT >>> #define virt_spin_lock virt_spin_lock >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS >>> static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) >>> { >>> - if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR)) >>> - return false; >> Have you consider just add one more jump label here to skip >> virt_spin_lock when KVM or Xen want to do so? > Why? Did you look at patch 4? This is the way to do it...I asked this because of my performance concern as stated later in the email.>>> - >>> - /* >>> - * On hypervisors without PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS support we fall >>> - * back to a Test-and-Set spinlock, because fair locks have >>> - * horrible lock 'holder' preemption issues. >>> - */ >>> - >>> - do { >>> - while (atomic_read(&lock->val) != 0) >>> - cpu_relax(); >>> - } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&lock->val, 0, _Q_LOCKED_VAL) != 0); >>> - >>> - return true; >>> + return pv_virt_spin_lock(lock); >>> +} >>> +#else >>> +static inline bool virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) >>> +{ >>> + return native_virt_spin_lock(lock); >>> } >>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS */ >>> #endif /* CONFIG_PARAVIRT */ >>> >>> #include <asm-generic/qspinlock.h> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c >>> index 26e4bd92f309..1be187ef8a38 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt-spinlocks.c >>> @@ -20,6 +20,12 @@ bool pv_is_native_spin_unlock(void) >>> __raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock; >>> } >>> >>> +__visible bool __native_virt_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) >>> +{ >>> + return native_virt_spin_lock(lock); >>> +} >>> +PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(__native_virt_spin_lock); >> I have some concern about the overhead of register saving/restoring have >> on spin lock performance in case the kernel is under a non-KVM/Xen >> hypervisor. > We are on the slow path already.That is true, but I still still believe there will be performance impact on lock contention behavior where the slowpath will be used. Cheers, Longman
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function
- [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function
- [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function
- [PATCH 0/4] make virt_spin_lock() a pvops function
- [PATCH 0/4] make virt_spin_lock() a pvops function