Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] Paravirtualized spinlock implementation for KVMguests

[Avi Kivity]

 On 08/02/2010 06:20 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>  On 08/02/2010 01:48 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >  On 07/26/2010 09:15 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > Paravirtual spinlock implementation for KVM guests, based heavily on 
> > > Xen guest's
> > > spinlock implementation.
> > >
> > >
> > > +
> > > +static struct spinlock_stats
> > > +{
> > > +    u64 taken;
> > > +    u32 taken_slow;
> > > +
> > > +    u64 released;
> > > +
> > > +#define HISTO_BUCKETS    30
> > > +    u32 histo_spin_total[HISTO_BUCKETS+1];
> > > +    u32 histo_spin_spinning[HISTO_BUCKETS+1];
> > > +    u32 histo_spin_blocked[HISTO_BUCKETS+1];
> > > +
> > > +    u64 time_total;
> > > +    u64 time_spinning;
> > > +    u64 time_blocked;
> > > +} spinlock_stats;
> >
> > Could these be replaced by tracepoints when starting to spin/stopping 
> > spinning etc?  Then userspace can reconstruct the histogram as well 
> > as see which locks are involved and what call paths.
>
> Unfortunately not; the tracing code uses spinlocks.
>
> (TBH I haven't actually tried, but I did give the code an eyeball to 
> this end.)

Hm.  The tracing code already uses a specialized lock (arch_spinlock_t), 
perhaps we can make this lock avoid the tracing?

It's really sad, btw, there's all those nice lockless ring buffers and 
then a spinlock for ftrace_vbprintk(), instead of a per-cpu buffer.

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/