On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> The reason we chose to revert to a test-and-set is because regular fair
> locks, like the ticket and the queue thing, have horrible behaviour
> under vcpu preemption.
Right. However, with our old ticket locks, that's what we got when you
didn't ask for paravirt support. No?
So this seems to be a misfeature - you made the hypervisor "support"
unconditional. Even a kernel compiled for raw hardware now does that
"let's act differently under a hypervisor", which I think is quite
debatable to begin with, but when that "act differently" is then
complete garbage, it's a disaster.
And even ignoring the "implementation was crap" issue, some people may
well want their kernels to be "bare hardware" kernels even under a
hypervisor. It may be a slim hypervisor that gives you all the cpus,
or it may just be a system that is just sufficiently overprovisioned,
so you don't get vcpu preemption in practice.
But it would be interesting to hear if just fixing the busy-looping to
not pound the lock with a constant stream of cmpxchg's is already
sufficient to fix the big picture problem.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
