On 05/23/2013 04:09 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:50:16PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 05/23/2013 03:37 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:31:47PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>> On 05/23/2013 02:18 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:13:06PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/23/2013 01:57 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:55:58AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>>>>>> It is only used to zap the obsolete page. Since the obsolete page
>>>>>>>> will not be used, we need not spend time to find its unsync children
>>>>>>>> out. Also, we delete the page from shadow page cache so that the page
>>>>>>>> is completely isolated after call this function.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The later patch will use it to collapse tlb flushes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>>>>>>>> index 9b57faa..e676356 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -1466,7 +1466,7 @@ static inline void kvm_mod_used_mmu_pages(struct kvm *kvm, int nr)
>>>>>>>> static void kvm_mmu_free_page(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> ASSERT(is_empty_shadow_page(sp->spt));
>>>>>>>> - hlist_del(&sp->hash_link);
>>>>>>>> + hlist_del_init(&sp->hash_link);
>>>>>>> Why do you need hlist_del_init() here? Why not move it into
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the hlist will be double freed. We will it like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_obsolete_page(page, list);
>>>>>> kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page(list);
>>>>>> kvm_mmu_free_page(page);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first place is kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_obsolete_page(page), which have
>>>>>> deleted the hash list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page() like we discussed it here:
>>>>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2580351/ instead of doing
>>>>>>> it differently for obsolete and non obsolete pages?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is can break the hash-list walking: we should rescan the
>>>>>> hash list once the page is prepared-ly zapped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mentioned it in the changelog:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4): drop the patch which deleted page from hash list at the "prepare"
>>>>>> time since it can break the walk based on hash list.
>>>>> Can you elaborate on how this can happen?
>>>>
>>>> There is a example:
>>>>
>>>> int kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn)
>>>> {
>>>> struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
>>>> LIST_HEAD(invalid_list);
>>>> int r;
>>>>
>>>> pgprintk("%s: looking for gfn %llx\n", __func__, gfn);
>>>> r = 0;
>>>> spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>>> for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(kvm, sp, gfn) {
>>>> pgprintk("%s: gfn %llx role %x\n", __func__, gfn,
>>>> sp->role.word);
>>>> r = 1;
>>>> kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page(kvm, sp, &invalid_list);
>>>> }
>>>> kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page(kvm, &invalid_list);
>>>> spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>>>
>>>> return r;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> It works fine since kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page does not touch the hash list.
>>>> If we delete hlist in kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page(), this kind of codes should
>>>> be changed to:
>>>>
>>>> restart:
>>>> for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(kvm, sp, gfn) {
>>>> pgprintk("%s: gfn %llx role %x\n", __func__, gfn,
>>>> sp->role.word);
>>>> r = 1;
>>>> if (kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page(kvm, sp, &invalid_list))
>>>> goto restart;
>>>> }
>>>> kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page(kvm, &invalid_list);
>>>>
>>> Hmm, yes. So lets leave it as is and always commit invalid_list before
>>
>> So, you mean drop this patch and the patch of
>> KVM: MMU: collapse TLB flushes when zap all pages?
>>
> We still want to add kvm_reload_remote_mmus() to
> kvm_mmu_invalidate_zap_all_pages(). But yes, we disable a nice
> optimization here. So may be skipping obsolete pages while walking
> hashtable is better solution.
Okay.
Will update this patch and the later patch.
>
>> But, we only introduced less code in this patch, most of them is reusing
>> the code of __kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page...
>>
>> Furthermore, maybe not related to this patch, i do not think calling
>> mmu_zap_unsync_children() in kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page() is necessary,
>> but i need to test it very carefully. Why not let
>> kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_obsolete_page for the first step? :(
>
> Yes, I want Marcelo opinion on skipping mmu_zap_unsync_children() first.
Okay. Thank you!
--
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
