From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Ian Jackson <iwj@xenproject.org>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "Tim Deegan" <tim@xen.org>,
"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
"George Dunlap" <george.dunlap@citrix.com>,
"Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>, "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][4.15] x86/shadow: suppress "fast fault path" optimization without reserved bits
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 17:34:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <99db39fd-e479-f71d-9cb9-5903ff6c12f4@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <24637.9408.839033.439930@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
On 01/03/2021 17:30, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH][4.15] x86/shadow: suppress "fast fault path" optimization without reserved bits"):
>> On 26.02.2021 18:07, Tim Deegan wrote:
>>> Yes, I think it could be reduced to use just one reserved address bit.
>>> IIRC we just used such a large mask so the magic entries would be
>>> really obvious in debugging, and there was no need to support arbitrary
>>> address widths for emulated devices.
>> Will cook a patch, albeit I guess I'll keep as many of the bits set
>> as possible, while still being able to encode a full-40-bit GFN.
>>
>> Ian - I don't suppose you'd consider this a reasonable thing to do
>> for 4.15? It would allow limiting the negative (performance) effect
>> the change here has.
> I'm afraid I don't follow enough of the background here to have an
> opinion right now. Can someone explain to me the risks (and,
> correspondingly, upsides) of the options ? Sorry to be dim, I don't
> seem to be firing on all cylinders today.
Intel IceLake CPUs (imminently coming out) have no reserved bits in
pagetable entries, so these "optimisations" malfunction. It is
definitely an issue for HVM Shadow guests, and possibly migration of PV
guests (I can never remember whether we use the GNP fastpath on PV or not).
It is arguably wrong that we ever depended on reserved behaviour.
I've got a (not-yet-upsteamed) XTF test which can comprehensively test
this. I'll find some time to give them a spin and give a T-by.
Without this fix, some combinations of "normal" VM settings will
malfunction.
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-01 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-25 13:03 [PATCH][4.15] x86/shadow: suppress "fast fault path" optimization without reserved bits Jan Beulich
2021-02-25 13:11 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-25 13:20 ` Ian Jackson
2021-02-25 13:25 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-25 13:17 ` Ian Jackson
2021-02-25 13:30 ` Jan Beulich
2021-02-26 17:07 ` Tim Deegan
2021-03-01 8:10 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-01 17:30 ` Ian Jackson
2021-03-01 17:34 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2021-03-01 17:43 ` Ian Jackson
2021-03-02 10:22 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-02 12:32 ` Ian Jackson
2021-03-02 13:17 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-02 10:12 ` Jan Beulich
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=99db39fd-e479-f71d-9cb9-5903ff6c12f4@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=george.dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=iwj@xenproject.org \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=tim@xen.org \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.