On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:53:24PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:42:45AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > 在 2022/4/26 11:38, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:35:41PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 04:29:11AM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:59:55 -0400 > > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:54:24AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:44:15AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > This patch tries to implement the synchronize_cbs() for ccw. > > > > > > > > > For the > > > > > > > > > vring_interrupt() that is called via virtio_airq_handler(), > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > synchronization is simply done via the airq_info's lock. For > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > vring_interrupt() that is called via > > > > > > > > > virtio_ccw_int_handler(), a per > > > > > > > > > device spinlock for irq is introduced ans used in the > > > > > > > > > synchronization > > > > > > > > > method. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > > > > > > > > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > > > > > > > > > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@kernel.org> > > > > > > > > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <m...@kernel.org> > > > > > > > > > Cc: Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > > Cc: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the only one that is giving me pause. Halil, Cornelia, > > > > > > > > should we be concerned about the performance impact here? > > > > > > > > Any chance it can be tested? > > > > > > > We can have a bunch of devices using the same airq structure, and > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > sync cb creates a choke point, same as registering/unregistering. > > > > > > BTW can callbacks for multiple VQs run on multiple CPUs at the > > > > > > moment? > > > > > I'm not sure I understand the question. > > > > > > > > > > I do think we can have multiple CPUs that are executing some portion > > > > > of > > > > > virtio_ccw_int_handler(). So I guess the answer is yes. Connie what > > > > > do you think? > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand we could also end up serializing synchronize_cbs() > > > > > calls for different devices if they happen to use the same airq_info. > > > > > But > > > > > this probably was not your question > > > > > > > > I am less concerned about synchronize_cbs being slow and more about > > > > the slowdown in interrupt processing itself. > > > > > > > > > > this patch serializes them on a spinlock. > > > > > > > > > > > Those could then pile up on the newly introduced spinlock. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Halil > > > > Hmm yea ... not good. > > > Is there any other way to synchronize with all callbacks? > > > > > > Maybe using rwlock as airq handler? > > > > Thanks > > > > rwlock is still a shared cacheline bouncing between CPUs and > a bunch of ordering instructions. > Maybe something per-cpu + some IPIs to run things on all CPUs instead?
... and I think classic and device interrupts are different enough here ... > > > > > > > -- > > > > MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
