From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757471Ab2GKMHd (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:07:33 -0400 Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.148]:51340 "EHLO e23smtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757427Ab2GKMHU (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:07:20 -0400 Message-ID: <4FFD6BDF.2050609@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:34:47 +0530 From: Raghavendra K T Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christian Borntraeger CC: Avi Kivity , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Marcelo Tosatti , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , S390 , Carsten Otte , KVM , chegu vinod , "Andrew M. Theurer" , LKML , X86 , Gleb Natapov , linux390@de.ibm.com, Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Joerg Roedel , Christian Ehrhardt Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler References: <20120709062012.24030.37154.sendpatchset@codeblue> <4FFA8E5E.3070108@de.ibm.com> <4FFD422B.9060008@redhat.com> <4FFD52CD.7040403@de.ibm.com> <4FFD68AA.1000607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4FFD69B5.9000401@de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4FFD69B5.9000401@de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit x-cbid: 12071102-7014-0000-0000-0000018A99B6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/11/2012 05:25 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 11/07/12 13:51, Raghavendra K T wrote: >>>>> Almost all s390 kernels use diag9c (directed yield to a given guest cpu) for spinlocks, though. >>>> >>>> Perhaps x86 should copy this. >>> >>> See arch/s390/lib/spinlock.c >>> The basic idea is using several heuristics: >>> - loop for a given amount of loops >>> - check if the lock holder is currently scheduled by the hypervisor >>> (smp_vcpu_scheduled, which uses the sigp sense running instruction) >>> Dont know if such thing is available for x86. It must be a lot cheaper >>> than a guest exit to be useful >> >> Unfortunately we do not have information on lock-holder. > > That would be an independent patch and requires guest changes. > Yes, AFAI think, there are two options: (1) extend lock and use spare bit in ticketlock indicate lock is held (2) use percpu list entry.