From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: "sstabellini@kernel.org" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
"julien@xen.org" <julien@xen.org>, "wl@xen.org" <wl@xen.org>,
"konrad.wilk@oracle.com" <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
"george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com" <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
"andrew.cooper3@citrix.com" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
"ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com" <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
"george.dunlap@citrix.com" <george.dunlap@citrix.com>,
"jeff.kubascik@dornerworks.com" <jeff.kubascik@dornerworks.com>,
"Xia, Hongyan" <hongyxia@amazon.com>,
"stewart.hildebrand@dornerworks.com"
<stewart.hildebrand@dornerworks.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen/mm: Introduce PG_state_uninitialised
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:59:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <af374a90-f060-7239-5a02-c98df409819c@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f5b6325a469352585d7cf1d7d01d2dc4a2f2af8f.camel@infradead.org>
On 07.02.2020 19:04, David Woodhouse wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> @@ -488,7 +488,8 @@ void share_xen_page_with_guest(struct page_info *page, struct domain *d,
>
> page_set_owner(page, d);
> smp_wmb(); /* install valid domain ptr before updating refcnt. */
> - ASSERT((page->count_info & ~PGC_xen_heap) == 0);
> + ASSERT((page->count_info & ~PGC_xen_heap) == PGC_state_inuse ||
> + (page->count_info & ~PGC_xen_heap) == PGC_state_uninitialised);
Can uninitialized pages really make it here?
> @@ -1389,6 +1391,16 @@ static void free_heap_pages(
> ASSERT(order <= MAX_ORDER);
> ASSERT(node >= 0);
>
> + if ( page_state_is(pg, uninitialised) )
> + {
> + init_heap_pages(pg, 1 << order, need_scrub);
> + /*
> + * init_heap_pages() will call back into free_heap_pages() for
> + * each page but cannot keep recursing because each page will
> + * be set to PGC_state_inuse first.
> + */
> + return;
> + }
> spin_lock(&heap_lock);
Can you also add a blank line above here please?
> @@ -1780,11 +1792,10 @@ int query_page_offline(mfn_t mfn, uint32_t *status)
> * latter is not on a MAX_ORDER boundary, then we reserve the page by
> * not freeing it to the buddy allocator.
> */
> -static void init_heap_pages(
> - struct page_info *pg, unsigned long nr_pages)
> +static void init_heap_pages(struct page_info *pg, unsigned long nr_pages,
> + bool scrub)
Is this new parameter strictly needed, i.e. can free_heap_pages()
be called with uninitialized pages which need scrubbing? (The
code change is simple enough, and hence may warrant keeping, but
then the commit message could indicate so in case this isn't a
strict requirement.)
> @@ -2301,10 +2316,11 @@ int assign_pages(
> for ( i = 0; i < (1 << order); i++ )
> {
> ASSERT(page_get_owner(&pg[i]) == NULL);
> - ASSERT(!pg[i].count_info);
> + ASSERT(pg[i].count_info == PGC_state_inuse ||
> + pg[i].count_info == PGC_state_uninitialised);
Same question here: Can uninitialized pages make it here? If
so, wouldn't it be better to correct this, rather than having
the more permissive assertion?
> page_set_owner(&pg[i], d);
> smp_wmb(); /* Domain pointer must be visible before updating refcnt. */
> - pg[i].count_info = PGC_allocated | 1;
> + pg[i].count_info |= PGC_allocated | 1;
This is too relaxed for my taste: I understand you want to
retain page state, but I suppose other bits would want clearing
nevertheless.
> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/mm.h
> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/mm.h
> @@ -72,12 +72,13 @@
> * { inuse, offlining, offlined, free, broken_offlining, broken }
> */
> #define PGC_state PG_mask(7, 9)
> -#define PGC_state_inuse PG_mask(0, 9)
> +#define PGC_state_uninitialised PG_mask(0, 9)
> #define PGC_state_offlining PG_mask(1, 9)
> #define PGC_state_offlined PG_mask(2, 9)
> #define PGC_state_free PG_mask(3, 9)
> #define PGC_state_broken_offlining PG_mask(4, 9)
> #define PGC_state_broken PG_mask(5, 9)
> +#define PGC_state_inuse PG_mask(6, 9)
Would imo be nice if this most common state was actually
either 1 or 7, for easy recognition. But the most suitable
value to pick may also depend on the outcome of one of the
comments on patch 1.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-20 12:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-04 15:14 [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH v2 1/2] Check zone before merging adjacent blocks in heap Stewart Hildebrand
2020-02-04 15:14 ` [Xen-devel] [DO NOT APPLY XEN PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for buddy allocator merging issue Stewart Hildebrand
2020-02-04 15:22 ` [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH v2 1/2] Check zone before merging adjacent blocks in heap Jan Beulich
2020-02-04 15:37 ` George Dunlap
2020-02-05 9:50 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-05 10:02 ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-05 10:24 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-05 10:49 ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-05 11:23 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-05 13:37 ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-05 14:12 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-07 15:49 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-07 15:57 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] xen/mm: fold PGC_broken into PGC_state bits David Woodhouse
2020-02-07 20:27 ` Julien Grall
2020-02-09 13:22 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-09 17:59 ` Julien Grall
2020-03-17 21:39 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-20 11:10 ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-17 21:52 ` David Woodhouse
2020-03-18 9:56 ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-18 12:31 ` Julien Grall
2020-03-18 13:23 ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-18 17:13 ` David Woodhouse
2020-03-19 8:49 ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-19 10:26 ` David Woodhouse
2020-03-19 11:59 ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-19 13:54 ` David Woodhouse
2020-03-19 14:46 ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-07 15:57 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen/mm: Introduce PG_state_uninitialised David Woodhouse
2020-02-07 16:30 ` Xia, Hongyan
2020-02-07 16:32 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-07 16:40 ` Xia, Hongyan
2020-02-07 17:06 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-07 18:04 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-20 11:59 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2020-02-20 13:27 ` Julien Grall
2020-03-17 22:15 ` David Woodhouse
2020-03-18 8:53 ` Paul Durrant
2020-03-18 10:10 ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-18 10:41 ` Paul Durrant
2020-03-18 11:12 ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-18 10:03 ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-18 12:11 ` David Woodhouse
2020-03-18 13:27 ` Jan Beulich
2020-02-05 10:22 ` [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH v2 1/2] Check zone before merging adjacent blocks in heap Julien Grall
2020-02-05 10:32 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-05 11:36 ` David Woodhouse
2020-02-04 15:37 ` Stewart Hildebrand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=af374a90-f060-7239-5a02-c98df409819c@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=george.dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=hongyxia@amazon.com \
--cc=ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=jeff.kubascik@dornerworks.com \
--cc=julien@xen.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=stewart.hildebrand@dornerworks.com \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).