Re: [PATCH] use unfair spinlock when running on hypervisor.

[Avi Kivity]

On 06/01/2010 07:38 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Your new code would starve again, right?
> > >
> > >        
> > Yes, of course it may starve with unfair spinlock. Since vcpus are not
> > always running there is much smaller chance then vcpu on remote memory
> > node will starve forever. Old kernels with unfair spinlocks are running
> > fine in VMs on NUMA machines with various loads.
> >      
> Try it on a NUMA system with unfair memory.
>    

We are running everything on NUMA (since all modern machines are now 
NUMA).  At what scale do the issues become observable?

> > I understand that reason and do not propose to get back to old spinlock
> > on physical HW! But with virtualization performance hit is unbearable.
> >      
> Extreme unfairness can be unbearable too.
>    

Well, the question is what happens first.  In our experience, vcpu 
overcommit is a lot more painful.  People will never see the NUMA 
unfairness issue if they can't use kvm due to the vcpu overcommit problem.

What I'd like to see eventually is a short-term-unfair, long-term-fair 
spinlock.  Might make sense for bare metal as well.  But it won't be 
easy to write.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/