On Tue, 06/28 04:45, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:39:15AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > Userspace listens to the KOBJ_ADD uevent generated in add_disk. At that
> > point we haven't created the serial attribute file, therefore depending
> > on how fast udev reacts, the /dev/di
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:39:15AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Userspace listens to the KOBJ_ADD uevent generated in add_disk. At that
> point we haven't created the serial attribute file, therefore depending
> on how fast udev reacts, the /dev/disk/by-id/ entry doesn't always get
> created.
>
> Thi
An over-committed guest with more vCPUs than pCPUs has a heavy overload in
the two spin_on_owner. This blames on the lock holder preemption issue.
Kernel has an interface bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) to see if a vCPU is
currently running or not. So break the spin loops on true condition.
test-
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.
Kernel has an interface bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu
This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks
implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently
kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu
as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can break
the s
change fomr v1:
a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted
skip mahcine type check on ppc, and add config. remove dedicated macro.
add one patch to drop overload of rwsem_spin_on_owner and
mutex_spin_on_owner.
add more comments
thanks boqun and Pete
This patch support to fix lock holder preemption issue.
For kernel users, we could use bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu) to detech if
one vcpu is preempted or not.
The default implementation is a macro defined by false. So compiler can
wrap it out if arch dose not support such vcpu pteempted check.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 01:14:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2016年06月23日 02:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 03:41:20AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > >Would it help to have ptr_ring_resize that gets an array of
> > > >rings and resizes them both to same l
