On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 01:27:38PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 07:24:53PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:55:31PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 04:15:34PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 09:01:33AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > > > > Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov <[email protected]>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 +-
> > > > > > virt/kvm/irq_comm.c | 55
> > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> > > > > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 1 -
> > > > > > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > > > > index f54a0d3..6756b3e 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > > > > @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ struct kvm {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct mutex irq_lock;
> > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_IRQCHIP
> > > > > > - struct list_head irq_routing; /* of
> > > > > > kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry */
> > > > > > + struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *irq_routing;
> > > > > > struct hlist_head mask_notifier_list;
> > > > > > #endif
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c b/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> > > > > > index 7af18b8..b2fa3f6 100644
> > > > > > --- a/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> > > > > > +++ b/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> > > > > > @@ -148,7 +148,8 @@ int kvm_set_irq(struct kvm *kvm, int
> > > > > > irq_source_id, int irq, int level)
> > > > > > * IOAPIC. So set the bit in both. The guest will ignore
> > > > > > * writes to the unused one.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > - list_for_each_entry(e, &kvm->irq_routing, link)
> > > > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > + for (e = rcu_dereference(kvm->irq_routing); e && e->set; e++) {
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Gleb,
> > > > > I haven't had a chance to fully digest and review these patches, but
> > > > > one thing I did notice is that you seem to be converting from a list
> > > > > to
> > > > > an open-coded structure. I am just curious why you made this design
> > > > > decision instead of using the RCU variant of list?
> > > > >
> > > > It is not scary "open-coded structure" it's just an array :) As I
> > > > responded
> > > > to Michael the idea is to move msis out of irq_routing, make the array
> > > > much smaller and either use gsi as an index in the array or use hash
> > > > table
> > > > instead looping over all entries. For now I can justify array as more
> > > > cache friendly data structure as we scan it linearly.
> > >
> > > I think its more important to convert to faster search mechanism (the
> > > list walk shows up high in profiling), then convert to RCU?
> > Why in this order? I am working on faster search mechanism now (on top
> > of the series).
>
> Because as Michael mentioned we can use slots_lock (should be renamed
> to global_lock) instead of RCU on the write-side.
>
I don't get it. The point for RCU is to get rid of reader's lock. If
I'll have to take slot_lock on each EOI I achieved nothing.
> Note it moves a lot of burden to the writer side, but its much simpler
> than RCU and you stop the spread of locks. Needs to be discussed...
>
I much prefer to have many well defined locks with well understood
scope, then a small number of globals locks that are split ad-hoc when
deadlock is discovered (lock->irq_lock).
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
