Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM: MMU: Don't touch unsync sp in kvm_mmu_pte_write()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



 On 09/23/2010 04:59 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 09/20/2010 11:24 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>   On 09/20/2010 04:21 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>  Gfn may have many shadow pages, when one sp need be synced, we write
>>  protected sp->gfn and sync this sp but we keep other shadow pages
>>  asynchronous
>>
>>  So, while gfn happen page fault, let it not touches unsync page, the
>>  unsync
>>  page only updated at invlpg/flush TLB time
>>
>>  @@ -3157,6 +3164,9 @@ void kvm_mmu_pte_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>  gpa_t gpa,
>>
>>        mask.cr0_wp = mask.cr4_pae = mask.nxe = 1;
>>        for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, sp, gfn, node) {
>>  +        if (sp->unsync)
>>  +            continue;
>>  +
>>
>
>  Not sure this is a win.  If a gpte is updated from having p=0 to p=1 (or
>  permissions upgraded), we may not have an invlpg to sync the spte, since
>  the hardware doesn't require it.  With this change, we may get an extra
>  #PF.
>

Avi,

Thanks for your review, i think this case is not too bad since:

1: This case only impacts local vcpu since if permissions is increased, it's
    no need send IPT to flush remote vcpu's tlb, so even if we update unsync
    spte in kvm_mmu_pte_write() path, the #PF still occur on other vcpus.

IIRC, the cpu will re-validate the tlb entry from the page tables before issuing a fault, so we won't see a spurious fault. Not 100% sure.

For !P -> P, there won't be a tlb entry, so 100% there won't be a spurious fault.

2: If the unsync sp which is updated in kvm_mmu_pte_write() is not using by the
    vcpu, it will sync automatically after it's loaded.

True, and this is a likely case.

3: If the sp is using, update this sp in kvm_mmu_pte_write() will avoid extra #PF,
    in this case, two(or more) sps have the same gfn, there are mapped in the same
    page table and with different kinds(unsync/sync), i thinks this case is infrequency.
    And even we updated it, we can not sure it can be accessed latter,

If it's infrequent, the why do we optimize it?

So, i think it's better lazily update unsync sp until it's used or the flush time,
your opinion? :-)


Any performance numbers?

To me it seems saving a possible exit is worth extra computation.

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux