All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] VT-d PI: track the number of vcpus on pi blocking list
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 01:42:53 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <59A7DA1D0200007800175E83@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170830225744.GA7383@op-computing>

>>> On 31.08.17 at 00:57, <chao.gao@intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:00:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 16.08.17 at 07:14, <chao.gao@intel.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -100,6 +101,24 @@ void vmx_pi_per_cpu_init(unsigned int cpu)
>>>      spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking, cpu).lock);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static void vmx_pi_add_vcpu(struct pi_blocking_vcpu *pbv,
>>> +                            struct vmx_pi_blocking_vcpu *vpbv)
>>> +{
>>> +    ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&vpbv->lock));
>>
>>You realize this is only a very weak check for a non-recursive lock?
> 
> I just thought the lock should be held when adding one entry to the
> blocking list. Do you think we should remove this check or make it
> stricter?

Well, the primary purpose of my comment was to make you aware
of the fact. If the weak check is good enough for you, then fine.
Removing the check would be a bad idea imo (but see also below);
tightening might be worthwhile, but might also go too far (depending
mainly on how clearly provable it is that all callers actually hold the
lock).

>>> +    add_sized(&vpbv->counter, 1);
>>> +    ASSERT(read_atomic(&vpbv->counter));
>>
>>Why add_sized() and read_atomic() when you hold the lock?
>>
> 
> In patch 3, frequent reading the counter is used to find a suitable
> vcpu and we can use add_sized() and read_atomic() to avoid acquiring the
> lock. In one word, the lock doesn't protect the counter.

In that case it would be more natural to switch to the atomic
accesses there. Plus you still wouldn't need read_atomic()
here, with the lock held. Furthermore I would then wonder
whether it wasn't better to use atomic_t for the counter at
that point. Also with a lock-less readers the requirement to
hold a lock here (rather than using suitable LOCKed accesses)
becomes questionable too.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2017-08-31  7:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-08-16  5:14 [PATCH v5 0/4] mitigate the per-pCPU blocking list may be too long Chao Gao
2017-08-16  5:14 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] VT-d PI: track the number of vcpus on pi blocking list Chao Gao
2017-08-30 16:00   ` Jan Beulich
2017-08-30 22:57     ` Chao Gao
2017-08-31  7:42       ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2017-08-31  7:15         ` Chao Gao
2017-08-31  8:33           ` Jan Beulich
2017-08-31  7:53             ` Chao Gao
2017-09-01  1:39             ` Chao Gao
2017-09-01  8:24               ` Jan Beulich
2017-09-01  7:55                 ` Chao Gao
2017-09-01  9:13                   ` Jan Beulich
2017-09-01  8:37                     ` Chao Gao
2017-09-01  9:55                       ` Jan Beulich
2017-09-01 10:04                         ` Jan Beulich
2017-08-16  5:14 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] x86/vcpu: track hvm vcpu number on the system Chao Gao
2017-08-16  5:14 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] VT-d PI: restrict the number of vcpus in a given pcpu's PI blocking list Chao Gao
2017-08-31 16:01   ` Jan Beulich
2017-08-16  5:14 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] xentrace: add support for HVM's PI blocking list operation Chao Gao

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=59A7DA1D0200007800175E83@prv-mh.provo.novell.com \
    --to=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=chao.gao@intel.com \
    --cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
    --cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.