On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:40:52PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hi Avi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 11:35:28AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > During the last kvm forum, I described a unit test framework that can
> > help test the kvm APIs. Briefly, it starts a process in host userspace,
> > which sets up a memory slot mapping gpa 0:3G to hva 0:3G. It then sets
> > up guest registers for unpaged protected mode (or paged protected mode
> > with 1:1 mapping). The effect is that we have a 1:1 gva->hva
> > translation, and can use KVM_RUN to run host code in guest mode.
> >
> > There is a snag however. kvm calls get_user_pages_fast(.write = 1), and
> > the host process maps its code pages read-only.
> >
> > The way I'd like to work around this is to map read-only accesses to
> > read-only pages as read-only. This also prevents ksm cow pages from
> > being broken by read accesses. It can also be used to get the page size
> > for transparent huge pages (and later hugetlbfs too).
> >
> > So, for a read fault we do:
> >
> > pte_t pte;
> > get_user_pages_ptes_fast(..., page, &pte, 1, .write = 0)
> > ...
> > if (pte_transhuge(pte)) // or however it's called
> > ...
> > ...
> > if (pte_write(pte))
> > map writeable
> > else
> > map readonly
> >
> > Any snags? or alternatives?
>
> I think we tried to do this write=0 before, it provides benefits for
> swapins from swapcache too (after the page is unmapped but the
> swapcache is present and uptodate and clean). If I recall correctly
> the only obstacle was the fact the out of sync code wants to map the
> spte writable if it can, but if we use write=0 in gup, it won't know
> if it can. If it'd wait a real write access from guest, we'd risk
> creating a spte wrprotect fault for nothing (it should only write a
> write access from the guest if the linux VM solves the page fault with
> a readonly pte, even the minor-read-fault from exclusive swapcache
> will not set the dirty bit but it will still set the pte_write on the
> pte so the out of sync code should take advantage of that information
> in the host pte). In the past you suggested some TRY_WRITE operation
> instead of only read/write. We just need to pass the write bit of the
> pte somehow to the gup caller.
Yep, the drawback is the unnecessary write fault. What i have here is:
--- kvm.orig/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ kvm/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -827,7 +827,7 @@ unsigned long gfn_to_hva(struct kvm *kvm
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gfn_to_hva);
-pfn_t gfn_to_pfn(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn)
+pfn_t gfn_to_pfn(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn, int *writable)
{
struct page *page[1];
unsigned long addr;
@@ -842,8 +842,16 @@ pfn_t gfn_to_pfn(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t
return page_to_pfn(bad_page);
}
+ *writable = 1;
npages = get_user_pages_fast(addr, 1, 1, page);
+ /* attempt to map read-only */
+ if (unlikely(npages != 1)) {
+ npages = get_user_pages_fast(addr, 1, 0, page);
+ if (npages == 1)
+ *writable = 0;
+ }
+
if (unlikely(npages != 1)) {
struct vm_area_struct *vma;
Can rebase and resend, if you'd like.
> Full agreement that once we use write=0 for read faults your problem
> with the debugging userland running in guest mode will have better
> chance to work too :).
>
> Andrea
--
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
