Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Jun 2016 23:21:30 +0800 | From | Boqun Feng <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] locking/osq: Drop the overload of osq lock |
| |
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 04:24:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 01:42:03PM -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: > > An over-committed guest with more vCPUs than pCPUs has a heavy overload > > in osq_lock(). > > > > This is because vCPU A hold the osq lock and yield out, vCPU B wait > > per_cpu node->locked to be set. IOW, vCPU B wait vCPU A to run and > > unlock the osq lock. Even there is need_resched(), it did not help on > > such scenario. > > > > To fix such bad issue, add a threshold in one while-loop of osq_lock(). > > The value of threshold is somehow equal to SPIN_THRESHOLD. > > Blergh, virt ... > > So yes, lock holder preemption sucks. You would also want to limit the > immediate spin on owner. > > Also; I really hate these random number spin-loop thresholds. > > Is it at all possible to get feedback from your LPAR stuff that the vcpu > was preempted? Because at that point we can add do something like: >
Good point!
> > int vpc = vcpu_preempt_count(); > > ... > > for (;;) { > > /* the big spin loop */ > > if (need_resched() || vpc != vcpu_preempt_count())
So on PPC, we have lppaca::yield_count to detect when an vcpu is preempted, if the yield_count is even, the vcpu is running, otherwise it is preempted(__spin_yield() is a user of this).
Therefore it makes more sense we
if (need_resched() || vcpu_is_preempted(old))
here, and implement vcpu_is_preempted() on PPC as
bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) { return !!(be32_to_cpu(lppaca_of(cpu).yield_count) & 1) }
Thoughts?
Regards, Boqun
> /* bail */ > > } > > > With a default implementation like: > > static inline int vcpu_preempt_count(void) > { > return 0; > } > > So the compiler can make it all go away. > > > But on virt muck it would stop spinning the moment the vcpu gets > preempted, which is the right moment I'm thinking. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |