On 18/11/15 20:02, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:30:59PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
--- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
+++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c
@@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ struct act
On 18/11/15 20:02, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:30:59PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
--- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
+++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c
@@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ struct act
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 05:30:59PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
> >> --- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
> >> +++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c
> >> @@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ struct active_grant_entry {
> >> #define _active_entry(t, e)
On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 13:08 +, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
> On 18/11/15 12:07, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 11:56 +, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
> > > On 18/11/15 11:50, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 11:23 +, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
> > > > > On 18/11/15 10
>>> On 18.11.15 at 14:08, wrote:
> On 18/11/15 12:07, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> (Maybe I should have said "like a bit lock with 32 or 64 bits, setting any
>> of which corresponds to acquiring the lock" ;-))
>>
> Not quite, setting the per cpu read area "takes" the read lock for the
> particular
> r
On 18/11/15 12:07, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 11:56 +, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
>> On 18/11/15 11:50, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 11:23 +, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
On 18/11/15 10:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.11.15 at 11:36, wrote:
>> On Tu
On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 11:56 +, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
> On 18/11/15 11:50, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 11:23 +, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
> > > On 18/11/15 10:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 18.11.15 at 11:36, wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 17:53 +, And
On 18/11/15 11:50, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 11:23 +, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
>> On 18/11/15 10:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 18.11.15 at 11:36, wrote:
On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 17:53 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 17/11/15 17:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.
On 18/11/15 11:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.11.15 at 12:23, wrote:
>> On 18/11/15 10:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> That's not how I understood it, the rwlock isn't per-pCPU (at least not
>>> in what this patch does - it remains a per-domain one). The per-pCPU
>>> object is a pointer to an rwlock
On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 11:23 +, Malcolm Crossley wrote:
> On 18/11/15 10:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 18.11.15 at 11:36, wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 17:53 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > On 17/11/15 17:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 17.11.15 at 18:30, wrote:
> > >
>>> On 18.11.15 at 12:23, wrote:
> On 18/11/15 10:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> That's not how I understood it, the rwlock isn't per-pCPU (at least not
>> in what this patch does - it remains a per-domain one). The per-pCPU
>> object is a pointer to an rwlock, which gets made point to whatever
>> doma
On 18/11/15 10:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.11.15 at 11:36, wrote:
>> On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 17:53 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 17/11/15 17:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 17.11.15 at 18:30, wrote:
> On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18.11.15 at 11:36, wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 17:53 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 17/11/15 17:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > > On 17.11.15 at 18:30, wrote:
>> > > On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > > > > On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
>> > > > > --- a/xen/common/grant_t
>>> On 18.11.15 at 11:06, wrote:
> On 18/11/15 07:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.11.15 at 18:53, wrote:
>>> On 17/11/15 17:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 17.11.15 at 18:30, wrote:
> On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/
On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 17:53 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 17/11/15 17:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 17.11.15 at 18:30, wrote:
> > > On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
> > > > > --- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
> > > > > +++ b/xen/common/grant_t
On 18/11/15 07:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.11.15 at 18:53, wrote:
>> On 17/11/15 17:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 17.11.15 at 18:30, wrote:
On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/gran
>>> On 17.11.15 at 18:53, wrote:
> On 17/11/15 17:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.11.15 at 18:30, wrote:
>>> On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
> +++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c
> @@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ struct a
On 17/11/15 17:39, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.11.15 at 18:30, wrote:
>> On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
--- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
+++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c
@@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ struct active_grant_entry {
#define _active_
>>> On 17.11.15 at 18:30, wrote:
> On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c
>>> @@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ struct active_grant_entry {
>>> #define _active_entry(t, e) \
>>> ((t)->active[(e)/ACGNT
On 17/11/15 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c
>> @@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ struct active_grant_entry {
>> #define _active_entry(t, e) \
>> ((t)->active[(e)/ACGNT_PER_PAGE][(e)%ACGNT_PER_PAGE])
>>
>> +b
>>> On 03.11.15 at 18:58, wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/grant_table.c
> +++ b/xen/common/grant_table.c
> @@ -178,6 +178,10 @@ struct active_grant_entry {
> #define _active_entry(t, e) \
> ((t)->active[(e)/ACGNT_PER_PAGE][(e)%ACGNT_PER_PAGE])
>
> +bool_t grant_rwlock_barrier;
> +
> +DEFINE_PER_
The per domain grant table read lock suffers from significant contention when
performance multi-queue block or network IO due to the parallel
grant map/unmaps/copies occuring on the DomU's grant table.
On multi-socket systems, the contention results in the locked compare swap
operation failing fre
22 matches
Mail list logo
