similar to: [PATCH v2 1/1] s390/spinlock: Provide vcpu_is_preempted

On 09/29/2016 05:51 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > this implements the s390 backend for commit > "kernel/sched: introduce vcpu preempted check interface" > by reworking the existing smp_vcpu_scheduled into > arch_vcpu_is_preempted. We can then also get rid of the > local cpu_is_preempted function by moving the > CIF_ENABLED_WAIT test into arch_vcpu_is_preempted.

On 09/29/2016 05:51 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > this implements the s390 backend for commit > "kernel/sched: introduce vcpu preempted check interface" > by reworking the existing smp_vcpu_scheduled into > arch_vcpu_is_preempted. We can then also get rid of the > local cpu_is_preempted function by moving the > CIF_ENABLED_WAIT test into arch_vcpu_is_preempted.

this implements the s390 backend for commit "kernel/sched: introduce vcpu preempted check interface" by reworking the existing smp_vcpu_scheduled into arch_vcpu_is_preempted. We can then also get rid of the local cpu_is_preempted function by moving the CIF_ENABLED_WAIT test into arch_vcpu_is_preempted. Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> ---

this implements the s390 backend for commit "kernel/sched: introduce vcpu preempted check interface" by reworking the existing smp_vcpu_scheduled into arch_vcpu_is_preempted. We can then also get rid of the local cpu_is_preempted function by moving the CIF_ENABLED_WAIT test into arch_vcpu_is_preempted. Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> ---

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:56:36AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 09/29/2016 05:51 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > this implements the s390 backend for commit > > "kernel/sched: introduce vcpu preempted check interface" > > by reworking the existing smp_vcpu_scheduled into > > arch_vcpu_is_preempted. We can then also get rid of the > >

change from v4: spilt x86 kvm vcpu preempted check into two patches. add documentation patch. add x86 vcpu preempted check patch under xen add s390 vcpu preempted check patch change from v3: add x86 vcpu preempted check patch change from v2: no code change, fix typos, update some comments change from v1: a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted skip mahcine type check on ppc,

change from v4: spilt x86 kvm vcpu preempted check into two patches. add documentation patch. add x86 vcpu preempted check patch under xen add s390 vcpu preempted check patch change from v3: add x86 vcpu preempted check patch change from v2: no code change, fix typos, update some comments change from v1: a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted skip mahcine type check on ppc,

change from v6: fix typos and remove uncessary comments. change from v5: spilt x86/kvm patch into guest/host part. introduce kvm_write_guest_offset_cached. fix some typos. rebase patch onto 4.9.2 change from v4: spilt x86 kvm vcpu preempted check into two patches. add documentation patch. add x86 vcpu preempted check patch under xen add s390 vcpu preempted check patch change from v3:

change from v6: fix typos and remove uncessary comments. change from v5: spilt x86/kvm patch into guest/host part. introduce kvm_write_guest_offset_cached. fix some typos. rebase patch onto 4.9.2 change from v4: spilt x86 kvm vcpu preempted check into two patches. add documentation patch. add x86 vcpu preempted check patch under xen add s390 vcpu preempted check patch change from v3:

change from v5: spilt x86/kvm patch into guest/host part. introduce kvm_write_guest_offset_cached. fix some typos. rebase patch onto 4.9.2 change from v4: spilt x86 kvm vcpu preempted check into two patches. add documentation patch. add x86 vcpu preempted check patch under xen add s390 vcpu preempted check patch change from v3: add x86 vcpu preempted check patch change from v2: no code

change from v5: spilt x86/kvm patch into guest/host part. introduce kvm_write_guest_offset_cached. fix some typos. rebase patch onto 4.9.2 change from v4: spilt x86 kvm vcpu preempted check into two patches. add documentation patch. add x86 vcpu preempted check patch under xen add s390 vcpu preempted check patch change from v3: add x86 vcpu preempted check patch change from v2: no code

As the vcpu_is_preempted() call is pretty costly compared with other checks within mutex_spin_on_owner() and rwsem_spin_on_owner(), they are done at a reduce frequency of once every 256 iterations. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman at redhat.com> --- kernel/locking/mutex.c | 5 ++++- kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 6 ++++-- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:00:25PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > As the vcpu_is_preempted() call is pretty costly compared with other > checks within mutex_spin_on_owner() and rwsem_spin_on_owner(), they > are done at a reduce frequency of once every 256 iterations. That's just disgusting.

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:00:24PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk > on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported by perf were > as follows: > > 71.27% 0.28% fio [k] down_write > 70.99% 0.01% fio [k] call_rwsem_down_write_failed > 69.43% 1.18% fio [k] rwsem_down_write_failed > 65.51%

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:00:25PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > As the vcpu_is_preempted() call is pretty costly compared with other > checks within mutex_spin_on_owner() and rwsem_spin_on_owner(), they > are done at a reduce frequency of once every 256 iterations. That's just disgusting.

It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported by perf were as follows: 71.27% 0.28% fio [k] down_write 70.99% 0.01% fio [k] call_rwsem_down_write_failed 69.43% 1.18% fio [k] rwsem_down_write_failed 65.51% 54.57% fio [k] osq_lock 9.72% 7.99% fio [k] __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted 4.16%

It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported by perf were as follows: 71.27% 0.28% fio [k] down_write 70.99% 0.01% fio [k] call_rwsem_down_write_failed 69.43% 1.18% fio [k] rwsem_down_write_failed 65.51% 54.57% fio [k] osq_lock 9.72% 7.99% fio [k] __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted 4.16%

It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk on a KVM guest running on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported by perf were as follows: 69.75% 0.59% fio [k] down_write 69.15% 0.01% fio [k] call_rwsem_down_write_failed 67.12% 1.12% fio [k] rwsem_down_write_failed 63.48% 52.77% fio [k] osq_lock 9.46% 7.88% fio [k]

It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk on a KVM guest running on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported by perf were as follows: 69.75% 0.59% fio [k] down_write 69.15% 0.01% fio [k] call_rwsem_down_write_failed 67.12% 1.12% fio [k] rwsem_down_write_failed 63.48% 52.77% fio [k] osq_lock 9.46% 7.88% fio [k]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:43:09AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk > on a VM running on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported > by perf were as follows: > > 69.75% 0.59% fio [k] down_write > 69.15% 0.01% fio [k] call_rwsem_down_write_failed > 67.12% 1.12% fio [k]