Re: [PATCH V3 6/9] virtio-ccw: implement synchronize_cbs()

[Halil Pasic]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:59:55 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:54:24AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Cc: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>  
> > >
> > >
> > > 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

> this patch serializes them on a spinlock.
>

Those could then pile up on the newly introduced spinlock.

Regards,
Halil