On 04/18/2013 07:38 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 07:22:23PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 04/18/2013 07:00 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:32:46PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>> pte_list_clear_concurrently allows us to reset pte-desc entry
>>>> out of mmu-lock. We can reset spte out of mmu-lock if we can protect the
>>>> lifecycle of sp, we use this way to achieve the goal:
>>>>
>>>> unmap_memslot_rmap_nolock():
>>>> for-each-rmap-in-slot:
>>>> preempt_disable
>>>> kvm->arch.being_unmapped_rmap = rmapp
>>>> clear spte and reset rmap entry
>>>> kvm->arch.being_unmapped_rmap = NULL
>>>> preempt_enable
>>>>
>>>> Other patch like zap-sp and mmu-notify which are protected
>>>> by mmu-lock:
>>>> clear spte and reset rmap entry
>>>> retry:
>>>> if (kvm->arch.being_unmapped_rmap == rmap)
>>>> goto retry
>>>> (the wait is very rare and clear one rmap is very fast, it
>>>> is not bad even if wait is needed)
>>>>
>>> I do not understand what how this achieve the goal. Suppose that rmap
>>> == X and kvm->arch.being_unmapped_rmap == NULL so "goto retry" is skipped,
>>> but moment later unmap_memslot_rmap_nolock() does
>>> vm->arch.being_unmapped_rmap = X.
>>
>> Access rmap is always safe since rmap and its entries are valid until
>> memslot is destroyed.
>>
>> This algorithm protects spte since it can be freed in the protection of mmu-lock.
>>
>> In your scenario:
>>
>> ======
>> CPU 1 CPU 2
>>
>> vcpu / mmu-notify access the RMAP unmap rmap out of mmu-lock which is under
>> which is under mmu-lock slot-lock
>>
>> zap spte1
>> clear RMAP entry
>>
>> kvm->arch.being_unmapped_rmap = NULL,
>> do not wait
>>
>> free spte1
>>
>> set kvm->arch.being_unmapped_rmap = RMAP
>> walking RMAP and do not see spet1 on RMAP
>> (the entry of spte 1 has been reset by CPU 1)
> and what prevents this from happening concurrently with "clear RMAP
> entry"? Is it safe?
All the possible changes on the RMAP entry is from valid-spte to PTE_LIST_SPTE_SKIP.
(no valid-spte to valid-spte / no spte to new-spte)
There are three possible cases:
case 1): both two paths can see the valid-spte.
the worst case is, the host page can be double A/D tracked
(multi calling of kvm_set_pfn_accessed/kvm_set_pfn_dirty), it is safe.
case 2): only the path under protection of mmu-lock see the valid-spte
this is safe since RMAP and spte are always valid under mmu-lock
case 3): only the path out of mmu-lock see the valid-spte
then the path under mmu-lock will being wait until the no-lock path has
finished. The spte is valid and no-lock path is safe to call
kvm_set_pfn_accessed/kvm_set_pfn_dirty.
Do you get any potential issue?
--
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
