On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 03:46:58PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 05:54:24PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > HINTS_DEDICATED seems to be somewhat confusing: > > > > Guest doesn't really care whether it's the only task running on a host > > CPU as long as it's not preempted. > > > > And there are more reasons for Guest to be preempted than host CPU > > sharing, for example, with memory overcommit it can get preempted on a > > memory access, post copy migration can cause preemption, etc. > > > > Let's call it KVM_HINTS_REALTIME which seems to better > > match what guests expect. > > > > Also, the flag most be set on all vCPUs - current guests assume this. > > Note so in the documentation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > > --- > > Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt | 6 +++--- > > arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h | 2 +- > > arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 8 ++++---- > > 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt > > b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt > > index d4f33eb8..ab022dc 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt > > @@ -72,8 +72,8 @@ KVM_FEATURE_CLOCKSOURCE_STABLE_BIT || 24 || host will > > warn if no guest-side > > > > flag || value || meaning > > > > ================================================================================== > > -KVM_HINTS_DEDICATED || 0 || guest checks this feature > > bit to > > - || || determine if there is vCPU > > pinning > > - || || and there is no vCPU > > over-commitment, > > +KVM_HINTS_REALTIME || 0 || guest checks this feature > > bit to > > + || || determine that vCPUs are > > never > > + || || preempted for an unlimited > > time, > > || || allowing optimizations > > My understanding of the original patch is that the intention is > to tell the guest that it is very unlikely to be preempted, > so it > can choose a more appropriate spinlock implementation. This > description implies that the guest will never be preempted, which > is much stronger guarantee.
Note: ... for an unlimited time. > > Isn't this new description incompatible with existing usage of > the hint, which might include people who just use vCPU pinning > but no mlock? Without mlock you should always use pv spinlocks. Otherwise you risk blocking on a lock taken by a VCPU that is in turn blocked on IO, where the IO is not completing because CPU is being used up spinning. > -- > Eduardo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html