lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] powerpc/spinlock: support vcpu preempted check
Hi Xinhui,

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 01:41:29PM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote:
> This is to fix some holder preemption issues. Spinning at one
> vcpu which is preempted is meaningless.
>
> Kernel need such interfaces, So lets support it.
>
> We also should suooprt both the shared and dedicated mode.
> So add lppaca_dedicated_proc macro in lppaca.h
>
> Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/lppaca.h | 6 ++++++
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/lppaca.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/lppaca.h
> index d0a2a2f..0a263d3 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/lppaca.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/lppaca.h
> @@ -111,12 +111,18 @@ extern struct lppaca lppaca[];
> * we will have to transition to something better.
> */
> #define LPPACA_OLD_SHARED_PROC 2
> +#define LPPACA_OLD_DEDICATED_PROC (1 << 6)
>

I think you should describe a little bit about the magic number here,
i.e. what document/specification says this should work, and how this
works.

> static inline bool lppaca_shared_proc(struct lppaca *l)
> {
> return !!(l->__old_status & LPPACA_OLD_SHARED_PROC);
> }
>
> +static inline bool lppaca_dedicated_proc(struct lppaca *l)
> +{
> + return !!(l->__old_status & LPPACA_OLD_DEDICATED_PROC);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * SLB shadow buffer structure as defined in the PAPR. The save_area
> * contains adjacent ESID and VSID pairs for each shadowed SLB. The
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index 523673d..ae938ee 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -52,6 +52,21 @@
> #define SYNC_IO
> #endif
>
> +/* For fixing some spinning issues in a guest.
> + * kernel would check if vcpu is preempted during a spin loop.
> + * we support that.
> + */
> +#define arch_vcpu_is_preempted arch_vcpu_is_preempted
> +static inline bool arch_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)

This function should be guarded by #ifdef PPC_PSERIES .. #endif, right?
Because if the kernel is not compiled with guest support,
vcpu_is_preempted() should always be false, right?

> +{
> + struct lppaca *lp = &lppaca_of(cpu);
> +
> + if (unlikely(!(lppaca_shared_proc(lp) ||
> + lppaca_dedicated_proc(lp))))

Do you want to detect whether we are running in a guest(ie. pseries
kernel) here? Then I wonder whether "machine_is(pseries)" works here.

Regards,
Boqun

> + return false;
> + return !!(be32_to_cpu(lp->yield_count) & 1);
> +}
> +
> static __always_inline int arch_spin_value_unlocked(arch_spinlock_t lock)
> {
> return lock.slock == 0;
> --
> 2.4.11
>
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-27 17:21    [W:0.162 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site