On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:35:08PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:27:51PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 04:03:46PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 02:32:38PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > > > > This patchset is based on my previous two patchset: > > > > [PATCH 0/2] KVM: x86: avoid potential soft lockup and unneeded mmu reload > > > > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/1/2) > > > > > > > > [PATCH v2 0/6] KVM: MMU: fast invalid all mmio sptes > > > > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/1/134) > > > > > > > > Changlog: > > > > V3: > > > > completely redesign the algorithm, please see below. > > > > > > > This looks pretty complicated. Is it still needed in order to avoid soft > > > lockups after "avoid potential soft lockup and unneeded mmu reload" patch? > > > > Do not want kvm_set_memory (cases: DELETE/MOVE/CREATES) to be > > suspectible to: > > > > vcpu 1 | kvm_set_memory > > create shadow page > > nuke shadow page > > create shadow page > > nuke shadow page > > > > Which is guest triggerable behavior with spinlock preemption algorithm. > > Not only guest triggerable as in the sense of a malicious guest, > but condition above can be induced by host workload with non-malicious > guest system. > Is the problem that newly created shadow pages are immediately zapped? Shouldn't generation number/kvm_mmu_zap_all_invalid() idea described here https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/22/111 solve this? > Also kvm_set_memory being relatively fast with huge memory guests > is nice (which is what Xiaos idea allows). > -- Gleb. -- 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
