On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 10:59:04AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/07/2012 10:06 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > On 05/03/2012 10:11 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> > > On 05/03/2012 04:23 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > >> On 05/03/2012 07:22 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Currently we flush the TLB while holding mmu_lock. This
> > >>> increases the lock hold time by the IPI round-trip time, increasing
> > >>> contention, and makes dropping the lock (for latency reasons) harder.
> > >>>
> > >>> This patch changes TLB management to be usable locklessly, introducing
> > >>> the following APIs:
> > >>>
> > >>> kvm_mark_tlb_dirty() - mark the TLB as containing stale entries
> > >>> kvm_cond_flush_remote_tlbs() - flush the TLB if it was marked as
> > >>> dirty
> > >>>
> > >>> These APIs can be used without holding mmu_lock (though if the TLB
> > >>> became stale due to shadow page table modifications, typically it
> > >>> will need to be called with the lock held to prevent other threads
> > >>> from seeing the modified page tables with the TLB unmarked and unflushed)/
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> Documentation/virtual/kvm/locking.txt | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > >>> arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h | 4 ++--
> > >>> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >>> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > >>> 4 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/locking.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/locking.txt
> > >>> index 3b4cd3b..f6c90479 100644
> > >>> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/locking.txt
> > >>> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/locking.txt
> > >>> @@ -23,3 +23,17 @@ Arch: x86
> > >>> Protects: - kvm_arch::{last_tsc_write,last_tsc_nsec,last_tsc_offset}
> > >>> - tsc offset in vmcb
> > >>> Comment: 'raw' because updating the tsc offsets must not be preempted.
> > >>> +
> > >>> +3. TLB control
> > >>> +--------------
> > >>> +
> > >>> +The following APIs should be used for TLB control:
> > >>> +
> > >>> + - kvm_mark_tlb_dirty() - indicates that the TLB is out of sync wrt
> > >>> + either guest or host page tables.
> > >>> + - kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() - unconditionally flush the tlbs
> > >>> + - kvm_cond_flush_remote_tlbs() - flush the TLBs if previously marked
> > >>> +
> > >>> +These may be used without mmu_lock, though kvm_mark_tlb_dirty() needs to be
> > >>> +used while holding mmu_lock if it is called due to host page table changes
> > >>> +(contrast to guest page table changes).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> In these patches, it seems that kvm_mark_tlb_dirty is always used
> > >> under the protection of mmu-lock, yes?
> > >
> > > Correct. It's possible we'll find a use outside mmu_lock, but this
> > > isn't likely.
> >
> >
> > If we need call kvm_mark_tlb_dirty outside mmu-lock, just use
> > kvm_flush_remote_tlbs instead:
> >
> > if (need-flush-tlb)
> > flush = true;
> >
> > do something...
> >
> > if (flush)
> > kvm_flush_remote_tlbs
>
> It depends on how need-flush-tlb is computed. If it depends on sptes,
> then we mush use kvm_cond_flush_remote_tlbs().
>
> > >
> > >> If both kvm_mark_tlb_dirty and kvm_cond_flush_remote_tlbs are use
> > >> out of mmu-lock, i think we can use kvm_flush_remote_tlbs instead.
> > >>
> > >> If it is so, dirtied_count/flushed_count need not be atomic.
> > >
> > > But we always mark with mmu_lock held.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, so, we can change kvm_mark_tlb_dirty to:
> >
> > +static inline void kvm_mark_tlb_dirty(struct kvm *kvm)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * Make any changes to the page tables visible to remote flushers.
> > + */
> > + smb_mb();
> > + kvm->tlb_state.dirtied_count++;
> > +}
> >
>
> Yes. We'll have to change it again if we ever dirty sptes outside the
> lock, but that's okay.
Please don't. There are readers outside mmu_lock, so it should be
atomic.
--
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
