On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 10:28:46AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 01/04/16 09:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 09:14:33AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> >> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/smp.h>
> >> #include <linux/cpu.h>
> >> #include <linux/sched.h>
> >> +#include <linux/hypervisor.h>
> >>
> >> #include "smpboot.h"
> >>
> >> @@ -758,9 +759,14 @@ struct smp_sync_call_struct {
> >> static void smp_call_sync_callback(struct work_struct *work)
> >> {
> >> struct smp_sync_call_struct *sscs;
> >> + unsigned int cpu;
> >>
> >> sscs = container_of(work, struct smp_sync_call_struct, work);
> >> + cpu = get_cpu();
> >> + hypervisor_pin_vcpu(cpu);
> >> sscs->ret = sscs->func(sscs->data);
> >> + hypervisor_pin_vcpu(-1);
> >> + put_cpu();
> >>
> >> complete(&sscs->done);
> >> }
> >
> > So I don't really like this; it adds the requirement that the function
> > cannot schedule, which greatly limits the utility of the construct. At
> > this point you might as well use the regular IPI stuff.
>
> Main reason for disabling preemption was to avoid any suspend/resume
> cycles while vcpu pinning is active.
>
> With the switch to workqueues this might not be necessary, if I've read
> try_to_freeze_tasks() correctly. Can you confirm, please?
This is not something we should worry about; the caller should ensure
the CPU stays valid; typically I would expect a caller to do
get_online_cpus() before 'computing' what CPU to send the function to.
> > So I would propose you add:
> >
> > smp_call_on_cpu()
> >
> > As per patch 2. No promises about physical or anything. This means it
> > can be used freely by anyone that wants to run a function on another
> > cpu -- a much more useful thing.
>
> Okay.
>
> > And then build a phys variant on top.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting here.
>
> Should this phys variant make use of smp_call_on_cpu() via an
> intermediate function called on the dedicated cpu which is doing the
> pinning and calling the user function then?
>
> Or do you want the phys variant to either use smp_call_on_cpu() or to
> do the pinning and call the user function by itself depending on the
> environment (pinning supported)?
Yeah, uhmm.. not sure on the details; my brain is having a hard time
engaging this morning.
Maybe just make the vpin thing an option like:
smp_call_on_cpu(int (*func)(void *), int phys_cpu);
Also; is something like the vpin thing possible on KVM? because if we're
going to expose it to generic code like this we had maybe look at wider
support.
