On 06/28/2010 11:55 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
+
+static inline u64 kvmppc_mmu_hash_pte(u64 eaddr) {
+ return hash_64(eaddr>> PTE_SIZE, HPTEG_HASH_BITS_PTE);
+}
+
+static inline u64 kvmppc_mmu_hash_vpte(u64 vpage) {
+ return hash_64(vpage& 0xfffffffffULL, HPTEG_HASH_BITS_VPTE);
+}
+
+static inline u64 kvmppc_mmu_hash_vpte_long(u64 vpage) {
+ return hash_64((vpage& 0xffffff000ULL)>> 12,
+ HPTEG_HASH_BITS_VPTE_LONG);
+}
Still with the wierd coding style?
Not sure what's going on there. My editor displays it normally. Weird.
Try hitting 'save'.
+static void kvmppc_mmu_pte_flush_all(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+ struct hpte_cache *pte, *tmp;
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i< HPTEG_HASH_NUM_VPTE_LONG; i++) {
+ struct list_head *list =&vcpu->arch.hpte_hash_vpte_long[i];
+
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(pte, tmp, list, list_vpte_long) {
+ /* Jump over the helper entry */
+ if (&pte->list_vpte_long == list)
+ continue;
I don't think l_f_e_e_s() will ever give you the head back.
Uh. Usually you have struct list_head in a struct and you point to the first entry to loop over all. So if it doesn't return the first entry, that would seem very counter-intuitive.
Linux list_heads aren't intuitive. The same structure is used for the
container and for the nodes. Would have been better (and more typesafe)
to have separate list_heads and list_nodes.
+
+ invalidate_pte(vcpu, pte);
+ }
Does invalidate_pte() remove the pte? doesn't seem so, so you can drop the _safe iteration.
Yes, it does.
I don't see it?
static void invalidate_pte(struct hpte_cache *pte)
{
dprintk_mmu("KVM: Flushing SPT: 0x%lx (0x%llx) -> 0x%llx\n",
pte->pte.eaddr, pte->pte.vpage, pte->host_va);
ppc_md.hpte_invalidate(pte->slot, pte->host_va,
MMU_PAGE_4K, MMU_SEGSIZE_256M,
false);
pte->host_va = 0;
if (pte->pte.may_write)
kvm_release_pfn_dirty(pte->pfn);
else
kvm_release_pfn_clean(pte->pfn);
}
Am I looking at old code?
+
+/* Flush with mask 0xfffffffff */
+static void kvmppc_mmu_pte_vflush_short(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 guest_vp)
+{
+ struct list_head *list;
+ struct hpte_cache *pte, *tmp;
+ u64 vp_mask = 0xfffffffffULL;
+
+ list =&vcpu->arch.hpte_hash_vpte[kvmppc_mmu_hash_vpte(guest_vp)];
+
+ /* Check the list for matching entries */
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(pte, tmp, list, list_vpte) {
+ /* Jump over the helper entry */
+ if (&pte->list_vpte == list)
+ continue;
list cannot contain list. Or maybe I don't understand the data structure. Isn't it multiple hash tables with lists holding matching ptes?
It is multiple hash tables with list_heads that are one element of a list that contains the matching ptes. Usually you'd have
struct x {
struct list_head;
int foo;
char bar;
};
and you loop through each of those elements. What we have here is
struct list_head hash[..];
and some loose struct x's. The hash's "next" element is a struct x.
The "normal" way would be to have "struct x hash[..];" but I figured that eats too much space.
No, what you describe is quite normal. In fact, x86 kvm mmu is exactly
like that, except we only have a single hash:
struct hlist_head mmu_page_hash[KVM_NUM_MMU_PAGES];
(another difference is using struct hlist_head instead of list_head,
which I recommend since it saves space)
+
+ if ((pte->pte.raddr>= pa_start)&&
+ (pte->pte.raddr< pa_end)) {
+ invalidate_pte(vcpu, pte);
+ }
Extra braces.
Yeah, for two-lined if's I find it more readable that way. Is it forbidden?
It's not forbidden, but it tends to attract "cleanup" patches, which are
annoying. Best to conform to the coding style if there isn't a good
reason not to.
Personally I prefer braces for one-liners (yes they're ugly, but they're
safer and easier to patch).
+int kvmppc_mmu_hpte_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+ char kmem_name[128];
+
+ /* init hpte slab cache */
+ snprintf(kmem_name, 128, "kvm-spt-%p", vcpu);
+ vcpu->arch.hpte_cache = kmem_cache_create(kmem_name,
+ sizeof(struct hpte_cache), sizeof(struct hpte_cache), 0, NULL);
Why not one global cache?
You mean over all vcpus? Or over all VMs?
Totally global. As in 'static struct kmem_cache *kvm_hpte_cache;'.
Because this way they don't interfere. An operation on one vCPU doesn't inflict anything on another. There's also no locking necessary this way.
The slab writers have solved this for everyone, not just us.
kmem_cache_alloc() will usually allocate from a per-cpu cache, so no
interference and/or locking. See ____cache_alloc().
If there's a problem in kmem_cache_alloc(), solve it there, don't
introduce workarounds.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
