On Fri, Aug 02, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2024-08-02 at 11:44 +0000, Carsten Stollmaier wrote: > > On vcpu_run, before entering the guest, the update of the steal time > > information causes a page-fault if the page is not present. In our > > scenario, this gets handled by do_user_addr_fault and successively > > handle_userfault since we have the region registered to that. > > > > handle_userfault uses TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, so it is interruptible by > > signals. do_user_addr_fault then busy-retries it if the pending signal > > is non-fatal. This leads to contention of the mmap_lock. > > The busy-loop causes so much contention on mmap_lock that post-copy > live migration fails to make progress, and is leading to failures. Yes? > > > This patch replaces the use of gfn_to_hva_cache with gfn_to_pfn_cache, > > as gfn_to_pfn_cache ensures page presence for the memory access, > > preventing the contention of the mmap_lock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Carsten Stollmaier <stollmc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I think this makes sense on its own, as it addresses the specific case > where KVM is *likely* to be touching a userfaulted (guest) page. And it > allows us to ditch yet another explicit asm exception handler. At the cost of using a gpc, which has its own complexities. But I don't understand why steal_time is special. If the issue is essentially with handle_userfault(), can't this happen on any KVM uaccess?
