* [PATCH 1/2] kvm: powerpc: Do not ignore "E" attribute in mas2 @ 2013-07-18 6:16 ` Bharat Bhushan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bharat Bhushan @ 2013-07-18 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, scottwood; +Cc: Bharat Bhushan, Bharat Bhushan Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> --- arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h index c2e5e98..277cb18 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static inline struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *to_e500(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) #define E500_TLB_USER_PERM_MASK (MAS3_UX|MAS3_UR|MAS3_UW) #define E500_TLB_SUPER_PERM_MASK (MAS3_SX|MAS3_SR|MAS3_SW) #define MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK \ - (MAS2_X0 | MAS2_X1) + (MAS2_X0 | MAS2_X1 | MAS2_E) #define MAS3_ATTRIB_MASK \ (MAS3_U0 | MAS3_U1 | MAS3_U2 | MAS3_U3 \ | E500_TLB_USER_PERM_MASK | E500_TLB_SUPER_PERM_MASK) -- 1.7.0.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] kvm: powerpc: Do not ignore "E" attribute in mas2 @ 2013-07-18 6:16 ` Bharat Bhushan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bharat Bhushan @ 2013-07-18 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, scottwood; +Cc: Bharat Bhushan, Bharat Bhushan Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> --- arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h index c2e5e98..277cb18 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static inline struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *to_e500(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) #define E500_TLB_USER_PERM_MASK (MAS3_UX|MAS3_UR|MAS3_UW) #define E500_TLB_SUPER_PERM_MASK (MAS3_SX|MAS3_SR|MAS3_SW) #define MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK \ - (MAS2_X0 | MAS2_X1) + (MAS2_X0 | MAS2_X1 | MAS2_E) #define MAS3_ATTRIB_MASK \ (MAS3_U0 | MAS3_U1 | MAS3_U2 | MAS3_U3 \ | E500_TLB_USER_PERM_MASK | E500_TLB_SUPER_PERM_MASK) -- 1.7.0.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 6:16 ` Bharat Bhushan @ 2013-07-18 6:16 ` Bharat Bhushan -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bharat Bhushan @ 2013-07-18 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, scottwood; +Cc: Bharat Bhushan, Bharat Bhushan If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> --- arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int usermode) return mas3; } -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) { + u32 mas2_attr; + + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; + + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; + } else { #ifdef CONFIG_SMP - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; -#else - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; #endif + } + return mas2_attr; } /* @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); -- 1.7.0.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 6:16 ` Bharat Bhushan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bharat Bhushan @ 2013-07-18 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, scottwood; +Cc: Bharat Bhushan, Bharat Bhushan If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> --- arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int usermode) return mas3; } -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) { + u32 mas2_attr; + + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; + + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; + } else { #ifdef CONFIG_SMP - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; -#else - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; #endif + } + return mas2_attr; } /* @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); -- 1.7.0.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 6:16 ` Bharat Bhushan @ 2013-07-18 6:26 ` "“tiejun.chen”" -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bharat Bhushan; +Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, scottwood, Bharat Bhushan On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's > normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) > else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) > > This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device > > Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> > --- > arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int usermode) > return mas3; > } > > -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) > +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) > { > + u32 mas2_attr; > + > + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > + > + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? Tiejun > + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; > + } else { > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; > -#else > - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; > #endif > + } > + return mas2_attr; > } > > /* > @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( > /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ > stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; > stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | > - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); > + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); > stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | > e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 6:26 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bharat Bhushan; +Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, scottwood, Bharat Bhushan On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's > normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) > else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) > > This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device > > Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> > --- > arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int usermode) > return mas3; > } > > -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) > +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) > { > + u32 mas2_attr; > + > + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > + > + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? Tiejun > + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; > + } else { > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; > -#else > - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; > #endif > + } > + return mas2_attr; > } > > /* > @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( > /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ > stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; > stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | > - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); > + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); > stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | > e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 6:26 ` "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 7:12 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 > -----Original Message----- > From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- > B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel > managed pages > > On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > > If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's normal > > DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) else this is > > treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) > > > > This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device > > > > Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> > > --- > > arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > > b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > > index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > > @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int > usermode) > > return mas3; > > } > > > > -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) > > +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) > > { > > + u32 mas2_attr; > > + > > + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > > + > > + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { > > Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is that it returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it is DDR. -Bharat > > Tiejun > > > + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; > > + } else { > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; > > -#else > > - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > > + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; > > #endif > > + } > > + return mas2_attr; > > } > > > > /* > > @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( > > /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ > > stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; > > stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | > > - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); > > + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); > > stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | > > e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 7:12 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 7:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 DQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogIuKAnHRpZWp1bi5jaGVu 4oCdIiBbbWFpbHRvOnRpZWp1bi5jaGVuQHdpbmRyaXZlci5jb21dDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5 LCBKdWx5IDE4LCAyMDEzIDExOjU2IEFNDQo+IFRvOiBCaHVzaGFuIEJoYXJhdC1SNjU3NzcNCj4g Q2M6IGt2bS1wcGNAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnOyBrdm1Admdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnOyBhZ3JhZkBz dXNlLmRlOyBXb29kIFNjb3R0LQ0KPiBCMDc0MjE7IEJodXNoYW4gQmhhcmF0LVI2NTc3Nw0KPiBT dWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW1BBVENIIDIvMl0ga3ZtOiBwb3dlcnBjOiBzZXQgY2FjaGUgY29oZXJlbmN5 IG9ubHkgZm9yIGtlcm5lbA0KPiBtYW5hZ2VkIHBhZ2VzDQo+IA0KPiBPbiAwNy8xOC8yMDEzIDAy OjA0IFBNLCBCaGFyYXQgQmh1c2hhbiB3cm90ZToNCj4gPiBJZiB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIHN0cnVjdCBw YWdlIGZvciB0aGUgcmVxdWVzdGVkIG1hcHBpbmcgdGhlbiBpdCdzIG5vcm1hbA0KPiA+IEREUiBh bmQgdGhlIG1hcHBpbmcgc2V0cyAiTSIgYml0IChjb2hlcmVudCwgY2FjaGVhYmxlKSBlbHNlIHRo aXMgaXMNCj4gPiB0cmVhdGVkIGFzIEkvTyBhbmQgd2Ugc2V0ICAiSSArIEciICAoY2FjaGUgaW5o aWJpdGVkLCBndWFyZGVkKQ0KPiA+DQo+ID4gVGhpcyBoZWxwcyBzZXR0aW5nIHByb3BlciBUTEIg bWFwcGluZyBmb3IgZGlyZWN0IGFzc2lnbmVkIGRldmljZQ0KPiA+DQo+ID4gU2lnbmVkLW9mZi1i eTogQmhhcmF0IEJodXNoYW4gPGJoYXJhdC5iaHVzaGFuQGZyZWVzY2FsZS5jb20+DQo+ID4gLS0t DQo+ID4gICBhcmNoL3Bvd2VycGMva3ZtL2U1MDBfbW11X2hvc3QuYyB8ICAgMTcgKysrKysrKysr KysrLS0tLS0NCj4gPiAgIDEgZmlsZXMgY2hhbmdlZCwgMTIgaW5zZXJ0aW9ucygrKSwgNSBkZWxl dGlvbnMoLSkNCj4gPg0KPiA+IGRpZmYgLS1naXQgYS9hcmNoL3Bvd2VycGMva3ZtL2U1MDBfbW11 X2hvc3QuYw0KPiA+IGIvYXJjaC9wb3dlcnBjL2t2bS9lNTAwX21tdV9ob3N0LmMNCj4gPiBpbmRl eCAxYzZhOWQ3Li4wODljMjI3IDEwMDY0NA0KPiA+IC0tLSBhL2FyY2gvcG93ZXJwYy9rdm0vZTUw MF9tbXVfaG9zdC5jDQo+ID4gKysrIGIvYXJjaC9wb3dlcnBjL2t2bS9lNTAwX21tdV9ob3N0LmMN Cj4gPiBAQCAtNjQsMTMgKzY0LDIwIEBAIHN0YXRpYyBpbmxpbmUgdTMyIGU1MDBfc2hhZG93X21h czNfYXR0cmliKHUzMiBtYXMzLCBpbnQNCj4gdXNlcm1vZGUpDQo+ID4gICAJcmV0dXJuIG1hczM7 DQo+ID4gICB9DQo+ID4NCj4gPiAtc3RhdGljIGlubGluZSB1MzIgZTUwMF9zaGFkb3dfbWFzMl9h dHRyaWIodTMyIG1hczIsIGludCB1c2VybW9kZSkNCj4gPiArc3RhdGljIGlubGluZSB1MzIgZTUw MF9zaGFkb3dfbWFzMl9hdHRyaWIodTMyIG1hczIsIHBmbl90IHBmbikNCj4gPiAgIHsNCj4gPiAr CXUzMiBtYXMyX2F0dHI7DQo+ID4gKw0KPiA+ICsJbWFzMl9hdHRyID0gbWFzMiAmIE1BUzJfQVRU UklCX01BU0s7DQo+ID4gKw0KPiA+ICsJaWYgKCFwZm5fdmFsaWQocGZuKSkgew0KPiANCj4gV2h5 IG5vdCBkaXJlY3RseSB1c2Uga3ZtX2lzX21taW9fcGZuKCk/DQoNCldoYXQgSSB1bmRlcnN0YW5k IGZyb20gdGhpcyBmdW5jdGlvbiAoc29tZW9uZSBjYW4gY29ycmVjdCBtZSkgaXMgdGhhdCBpdCBy ZXR1cm5zICJmYWxzZSIgd2hlbiB0aGUgcGFnZSBpcyBtYW5hZ2VkIGJ5IGtlcm5lbCBhbmQgaXMg bm90IG1hcmtlZCBhcyBSRVNFUlZFRCAoZm9yIHNvbWUgcmVhc29uKS4gRm9yIHVzIGl0IGRvZXMg bm90IG1hdHRlciB3aGV0aGVyIHRoZSBwYWdlIGlzIHJlc2VydmVkIG9yIG5vdCwgaWYgaXQgaXMg a2VybmVsIHZpc2libGUgcGFnZSB0aGVuIGl0IGlzIEREUi4NCg0KLUJoYXJhdA0KDQo+IA0KPiBU aWVqdW4NCj4gDQo+ID4gKwkJbWFzMl9hdHRyIHw9IE1BUzJfSSB8IE1BUzJfRzsNCj4gPiArCX0g ZWxzZSB7DQo+ID4gICAjaWZkZWYgQ09ORklHX1NNUA0KPiA+IC0JcmV0dXJuIChtYXMyICYgTUFT Ml9BVFRSSUJfTUFTSykgfCBNQVMyX007DQo+ID4gLSNlbHNlDQo+ID4gLQlyZXR1cm4gbWFzMiAm IE1BUzJfQVRUUklCX01BU0s7DQo+ID4gKwkJbWFzMl9hdHRyIHw9IE1BUzJfTTsNCj4gPiAgICNl bmRpZg0KPiA+ICsJfQ0KPiA+ICsJcmV0dXJuIG1hczJfYXR0cjsNCj4gPiAgIH0NCj4gPg0KPiA+ ICAgLyoNCj4gPiBAQCAtMzEzLDcgKzMyMCw3IEBAIHN0YXRpYyB2b2lkIGt2bXBwY19lNTAwX3Nl dHVwX3N0bGJlKA0KPiA+ICAgCS8qIEZvcmNlIElQUk9UPTAgZm9yIGFsbCBndWVzdCBtYXBwaW5n cy4gKi8NCj4gPiAgIAlzdGxiZS0+bWFzMSA9IE1BUzFfVFNJWkUodHNpemUpIHwgZ2V0X3RsYl9z dHMoZ3RsYmUpIHwgTUFTMV9WQUxJRDsNCj4gPiAgIAlzdGxiZS0+bWFzMiA9IChndmFkZHIgJiBN QVMyX0VQTikgfA0KPiA+IC0JCSAgICAgIGU1MDBfc2hhZG93X21hczJfYXR0cmliKGd0bGJlLT5t YXMyLCBwcik7DQo+ID4gKwkJICAgICAgZTUwMF9zaGFkb3dfbWFzMl9hdHRyaWIoZ3RsYmUtPm1h czIsIHBmbik7DQo+ID4gICAJc3RsYmUtPm1hczdfMyA9ICgodTY0KXBmbiA8PCBQQUdFX1NISUZU KSB8DQo+ID4gICAJCQllNTAwX3NoYWRvd19tYXMzX2F0dHJpYihndGxiZS0+bWFzN18zLCBwcik7 DQo+ID4NCj4gPg0KPiANCg0K ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 7:12 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 7:31 ` "“tiejun.chen”" -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 7:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; +Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >> B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >> managed pages >> >> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's normal >>> DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) else this is >>> treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) >>> >>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>> --- >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >> usermode) >>> return mas3; >>> } >>> >>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) >>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>> { >>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>> + >>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>> + >>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >> >> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > > What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is that it returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it is DDR. > I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If so, KVM: direct mmio pfn check Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio pages rather than normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these mmio pages by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. Tiejun > -Bharat > >> >> Tiejun >> >>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; >>> + } else { >>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP >>> - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; >>> -#else >>> - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; >>> #endif >>> + } >>> + return mas2_attr; >>> } >>> >>> /* >>> @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( >>> /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ >>> stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; >>> stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | >>> - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); >>> + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); >>> stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | >>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); >>> >>> >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 7:31 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 7:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; +Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >> B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >> managed pages >> >> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's normal >>> DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) else this is >>> treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) >>> >>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>> --- >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >> usermode) >>> return mas3; >>> } >>> >>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) >>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>> { >>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>> + >>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>> + >>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >> >> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > > What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is that it returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it is DDR. > I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If so, KVM: direct mmio pfn check Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio pages rather than normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these mmio pages by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. Tiejun > -Bharat > >> >> Tiejun >> >>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; >>> + } else { >>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP >>> - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; >>> -#else >>> - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; >>> #endif >>> + } >>> + return mas2_attr; >>> } >>> >>> /* >>> @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( >>> /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ >>> stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; >>> stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | >>> - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); >>> + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); >>> stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | >>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); >>> >>> >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 7:31 ` "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 8:08 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 > -----Original Message----- > From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On > Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- > B07421 > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel > managed pages > > On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM > >> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood > >> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for > >> kernel managed pages > >> > >> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > >>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's normal > >>> DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) else this is > >>> treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) > >>> > >>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> > >>> --- > >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > >>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 > >>> mas3, int > >> usermode) > >>> return mas3; > >>> } > >>> > >>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) > >>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) > >>> { > >>> + u32 mas2_attr; > >>> + > >>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > >>> + > >>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { > >> > >> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > > > > What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is that it > returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not marked as RESERVED > (for some reason). For us it does not matter whether the page is reserved or > not, if it is kernel visible page then it is DDR. > > > > I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If so, > > KVM: direct mmio pfn check > > Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio pages rather > than > normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these mmio pages > by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking PageReserved helps in those cases? -Bharat > > Tiejun > > > -Bharat > > > >> > >> Tiejun > >> > >>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; > >>> + } else { > >>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > >>> - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; > >>> -#else > >>> - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > >>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; > >>> #endif > >>> + } > >>> + return mas2_attr; > >>> } > >>> > >>> /* > >>> @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( > >>> /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ > >>> stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; > >>> stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | > >>> - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); > >>> + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); > >>> stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | > >>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body > of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 8:08 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 DQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbToga3ZtLXBwYy1vd25lckB2 Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmcgW21haWx0bzprdm0tcHBjLW93bmVyQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZ10gT24N Cj4gQmVoYWxmIE9mICLigJx0aWVqdW4uY2hlbuKAnSINCj4gU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXksIEp1bHkg MTgsIDIwMTMgMTowMSBQTQ0KPiBUbzogQmh1c2hhbiBCaGFyYXQtUjY1Nzc3DQo+IENjOiBrdm0t cHBjQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsga3ZtQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsgYWdyYWZAc3VzZS5kZTsg V29vZCBTY290dC0NCj4gQjA3NDIxDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbUEFUQ0ggMi8yXSBrdm06IHBv d2VycGM6IHNldCBjYWNoZSBjb2hlcmVuY3kgb25seSBmb3Iga2VybmVsDQo+IG1hbmFnZWQgcGFn ZXMNCj4gDQo+IE9uIDA3LzE4LzIwMTMgMDM6MTIgUE0sIEJodXNoYW4gQmhhcmF0LVI2NTc3NyB3 cm90ZToNCj4gPg0KPiA+DQo+ID4+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+ID4+IEZy b206ICLigJx0aWVqdW4uY2hlbuKAnSIgW21haWx0bzp0aWVqdW4uY2hlbkB3aW5kcml2ZXIuY29t XQ0KPiA+PiBTZW50OiBUaHVyc2RheSwgSnVseSAxOCwgMjAxMyAxMTo1NiBBTQ0KPiA+PiBUbzog Qmh1c2hhbiBCaGFyYXQtUjY1Nzc3DQo+ID4+IENjOiBrdm0tcHBjQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsg a3ZtQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsgYWdyYWZAc3VzZS5kZTsgV29vZA0KPiA+PiBTY290dC0gQjA3 NDIxOyBCaHVzaGFuIEJoYXJhdC1SNjU3NzcNCj4gPj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtQQVRDSCAyLzJd IGt2bTogcG93ZXJwYzogc2V0IGNhY2hlIGNvaGVyZW5jeSBvbmx5IGZvcg0KPiA+PiBrZXJuZWwg bWFuYWdlZCBwYWdlcw0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+PiBPbiAwNy8xOC8yMDEzIDAyOjA0IFBNLCBCaGFyYXQg Qmh1c2hhbiB3cm90ZToNCj4gPj4+IElmIHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgc3RydWN0IHBhZ2UgZm9yIHRoZSBy ZXF1ZXN0ZWQgbWFwcGluZyB0aGVuIGl0J3Mgbm9ybWFsDQo+ID4+PiBERFIgYW5kIHRoZSBtYXBw aW5nIHNldHMgIk0iIGJpdCAoY29oZXJlbnQsIGNhY2hlYWJsZSkgZWxzZSB0aGlzIGlzDQo+ID4+ PiB0cmVhdGVkIGFzIEkvTyBhbmQgd2Ugc2V0ICAiSSArIEciICAoY2FjaGUgaW5oaWJpdGVkLCBn dWFyZGVkKQ0KPiA+Pj4NCj4gPj4+IFRoaXMgaGVscHMgc2V0dGluZyBwcm9wZXIgVExCIG1hcHBp bmcgZm9yIGRpcmVjdCBhc3NpZ25lZCBkZXZpY2UNCj4gPj4+DQo+ID4+PiBTaWduZWQtb2ZmLWJ5 OiBCaGFyYXQgQmh1c2hhbiA8YmhhcmF0LmJodXNoYW5AZnJlZXNjYWxlLmNvbT4NCj4gPj4+IC0t LQ0KPiA+Pj4gICAgYXJjaC9wb3dlcnBjL2t2bS9lNTAwX21tdV9ob3N0LmMgfCAgIDE3ICsrKysr KysrKysrKy0tLS0tDQo+ID4+PiAgICAxIGZpbGVzIGNoYW5nZWQsIDEyIGluc2VydGlvbnMoKyks IDUgZGVsZXRpb25zKC0pDQo+ID4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4gZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL2FyY2gvcG93ZXJwYy9r dm0vZTUwMF9tbXVfaG9zdC5jDQo+ID4+PiBiL2FyY2gvcG93ZXJwYy9rdm0vZTUwMF9tbXVfaG9z dC5jDQo+ID4+PiBpbmRleCAxYzZhOWQ3Li4wODljMjI3IDEwMDY0NA0KPiA+Pj4gLS0tIGEvYXJj aC9wb3dlcnBjL2t2bS9lNTAwX21tdV9ob3N0LmMNCj4gPj4+ICsrKyBiL2FyY2gvcG93ZXJwYy9r dm0vZTUwMF9tbXVfaG9zdC5jDQo+ID4+PiBAQCAtNjQsMTMgKzY0LDIwIEBAIHN0YXRpYyBpbmxp bmUgdTMyIGU1MDBfc2hhZG93X21hczNfYXR0cmliKHUzMg0KPiA+Pj4gbWFzMywgaW50DQo+ID4+ IHVzZXJtb2RlKQ0KPiA+Pj4gICAgCXJldHVybiBtYXMzOw0KPiA+Pj4gICAgfQ0KPiA+Pj4NCj4g Pj4+IC1zdGF0aWMgaW5saW5lIHUzMiBlNTAwX3NoYWRvd19tYXMyX2F0dHJpYih1MzIgbWFzMiwg aW50IHVzZXJtb2RlKQ0KPiA+Pj4gK3N0YXRpYyBpbmxpbmUgdTMyIGU1MDBfc2hhZG93X21hczJf YXR0cmliKHUzMiBtYXMyLCBwZm5fdCBwZm4pDQo+ID4+PiAgICB7DQo+ID4+PiArCXUzMiBtYXMy X2F0dHI7DQo+ID4+PiArDQo+ID4+PiArCW1hczJfYXR0ciA9IG1hczIgJiBNQVMyX0FUVFJJQl9N QVNLOw0KPiA+Pj4gKw0KPiA+Pj4gKwlpZiAoIXBmbl92YWxpZChwZm4pKSB7DQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+ IFdoeSBub3QgZGlyZWN0bHkgdXNlIGt2bV9pc19tbWlvX3BmbigpPw0KPiA+DQo+ID4gV2hhdCBJ IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgZnJvbSB0aGlzIGZ1bmN0aW9uIChzb21lb25lIGNhbiBjb3JyZWN0IG1lKSBp cyB0aGF0IGl0DQo+IHJldHVybnMgImZhbHNlIiB3aGVuIHRoZSBwYWdlIGlzIG1hbmFnZWQgYnkg a2VybmVsIGFuZCBpcyBub3QgbWFya2VkIGFzIFJFU0VSVkVEDQo+IChmb3Igc29tZSByZWFzb24p LiBGb3IgdXMgaXQgZG9lcyBub3QgbWF0dGVyIHdoZXRoZXIgdGhlIHBhZ2UgaXMgcmVzZXJ2ZWQg b3INCj4gbm90LCBpZiBpdCBpcyBrZXJuZWwgdmlzaWJsZSBwYWdlIHRoZW4gaXQgaXMgRERSLg0K PiA+DQo+IA0KPiBJIHRoaW5rIHlvdSBhcmUgc2V0dGluZyBJfEcgYnkgYWRkcmVzc2luZyBhbGwg bW1pbyBwYWdlcywgcmlnaHQ/IElmIHNvLA0KPiANCj4gICAgICBLVk06IGRpcmVjdCBtbWlvIHBm biBjaGVjaw0KPiANCj4gICAgICBVc2Vyc3BhY2UgbWF5IHNwZWNpZnkgbWVtb3J5IHNsb3RzIHRo YXQgYXJlIGJhY2tlZCBieSBtbWlvIHBhZ2VzIHJhdGhlcg0KPiB0aGFuDQo+ICAgICAgbm9ybWFs IFJBTS4gIEluIHNvbWUgY2FzZXMgaXQgaXMgbm90IGVub3VnaCB0byBpZGVudGlmeSB0aGVzZSBt bWlvIHBhZ2VzDQo+ICAgICAgYnkgcGZuX3ZhbGlkKCkuICBUaGlzIHBhdGNoIGFkZHMgY2hlY2tp bmcgdGhlIFBhZ2VSZXNlcnZlZCBhcyB3ZWxsLg0KDQpEbyB5b3Uga25vdyB3aGF0IGFyZSB0aG9z ZSAic29tZSBjYXNlcyIgYW5kIGhvdyBjaGVja2luZyBQYWdlUmVzZXJ2ZWQgaGVscHMgaW4gdGhv c2UgY2FzZXM/DQoNCi1CaGFyYXQNCg0KPiANCj4gVGllanVuDQo+IA0KPiA+IC1CaGFyYXQNCj4g Pg0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+PiBUaWVqdW4NCj4gPj4NCj4gPj4+ICsJCW1hczJfYXR0ciB8PSBNQVMyX0kg fCBNQVMyX0c7DQo+ID4+PiArCX0gZWxzZSB7DQo+ID4+PiAgICAjaWZkZWYgQ09ORklHX1NNUA0K PiA+Pj4gLQlyZXR1cm4gKG1hczIgJiBNQVMyX0FUVFJJQl9NQVNLKSB8IE1BUzJfTTsNCj4gPj4+ IC0jZWxzZQ0KPiA+Pj4gLQlyZXR1cm4gbWFzMiAmIE1BUzJfQVRUUklCX01BU0s7DQo+ID4+PiAr CQltYXMyX2F0dHIgfD0gTUFTMl9NOw0KPiA+Pj4gICAgI2VuZGlmDQo+ID4+PiArCX0NCj4gPj4+ ICsJcmV0dXJuIG1hczJfYXR0cjsNCj4gPj4+ICAgIH0NCj4gPj4+DQo+ID4+PiAgICAvKg0KPiA+ Pj4gQEAgLTMxMyw3ICszMjAsNyBAQCBzdGF0aWMgdm9pZCBrdm1wcGNfZTUwMF9zZXR1cF9zdGxi ZSgNCj4gPj4+ICAgIAkvKiBGb3JjZSBJUFJPVD0wIGZvciBhbGwgZ3Vlc3QgbWFwcGluZ3MuICov DQo+ID4+PiAgICAJc3RsYmUtPm1hczEgPSBNQVMxX1RTSVpFKHRzaXplKSB8IGdldF90bGJfc3Rz KGd0bGJlKSB8IE1BUzFfVkFMSUQ7DQo+ID4+PiAgICAJc3RsYmUtPm1hczIgPSAoZ3ZhZGRyICYg TUFTMl9FUE4pIHwNCj4gPj4+IC0JCSAgICAgIGU1MDBfc2hhZG93X21hczJfYXR0cmliKGd0bGJl LT5tYXMyLCBwcik7DQo+ID4+PiArCQkgICAgICBlNTAwX3NoYWRvd19tYXMyX2F0dHJpYihndGxi ZS0+bWFzMiwgcGZuKTsNCj4gPj4+ICAgIAlzdGxiZS0+bWFzN18zID0gKCh1NjQpcGZuIDw8IFBB R0VfU0hJRlQpIHwNCj4gPj4+ICAgIAkJCWU1MDBfc2hhZG93X21hczNfYXR0cmliKGd0bGJlLT5t YXM3XzMsIHByKTsNCj4gPj4+DQo+ID4+Pg0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+DQo+IA0KPiAtLQ0KPiBUbyB1bnN1 YnNjcmliZSBmcm9tIHRoaXMgbGlzdDogc2VuZCB0aGUgbGluZSAidW5zdWJzY3JpYmUga3ZtLXBw YyIgaW4gdGhlIGJvZHkNCj4gb2YgYSBtZXNzYWdlIHRvIG1ham9yZG9tb0B2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5v cmcgTW9yZSBtYWpvcmRvbW8gaW5mbyBhdA0KPiBodHRwOi8vdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnL21ham9y ZG9tby1pbmZvLmh0bWwNCg0K ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 8:08 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 8:21 ` "“tiejun.chen”" -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; +Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On >> Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >> B07421 >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >> managed pages >> >> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>> kernel managed pages >>>> >>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's normal >>>>> DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) else this is >>>>> treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) >>>>> >>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 >>>>> mas3, int >>>> usermode) >>>>> return mas3; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) >>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>> { >>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>> + >>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>> >>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>> >>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is that it >> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not marked as RESERVED >> (for some reason). For us it does not matter whether the page is reserved or >> not, if it is kernel visible page then it is DDR. >>> >> >> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If so, >> >> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >> >> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio pages rather >> than >> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these mmio pages >> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. > > Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking PageReserved helps in those cases? No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) Tiejun > > -Bharat > >> >> Tiejun >> >>> -Bharat >>> >>>> >>>> Tiejun >>>> >>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; >>>>> + } else { >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP >>>>> - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; >>>>> -#else >>>>> - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; >>>>> #endif >>>>> + } >>>>> + return mas2_attr; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> /* >>>>> @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( >>>>> /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ >>>>> stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; >>>>> stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | >>>>> - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); >>>>> + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); >>>>> stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | >>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body >> of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at >> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 8:21 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; +Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On >> Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >> B07421 >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >> managed pages >> >> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>> kernel managed pages >>>> >>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's normal >>>>> DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) else this is >>>>> treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) >>>>> >>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 >>>>> mas3, int >>>> usermode) >>>>> return mas3; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) >>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>> { >>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>> + >>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>> + >>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>> >>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>> >>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is that it >> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not marked as RESERVED >> (for some reason). For us it does not matter whether the page is reserved or >> not, if it is kernel visible page then it is DDR. >>> >> >> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If so, >> >> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >> >> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio pages rather >> than >> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these mmio pages >> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. > > Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking PageReserved helps in those cases? No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) Tiejun > > -Bharat > >> >> Tiejun >> >>> -Bharat >>> >>>> >>>> Tiejun >>>> >>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; >>>>> + } else { >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP >>>>> - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; >>>>> -#else >>>>> - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; >>>>> #endif >>>>> + } >>>>> + return mas2_attr; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> /* >>>>> @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( >>>>> /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ >>>>> stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; >>>>> stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | >>>>> - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); >>>>> + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); >>>>> stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | >>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body >> of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at >> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 8:21 ` "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 8:22 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 > -----Original Message----- > From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- > B07421 > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel > managed pages > > On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org > >> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" > >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM > >> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood > >> Scott- > >> B07421 > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for > >> kernel managed pages > >> > >> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM > >>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; > >>>> Wood > >>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for > >>>> kernel managed pages > >>>> > >>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > >>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's > >>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) else > >>>>> this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, > >>>>> guarded) > >>>>> > >>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > >>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 > >>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 > >>>>> mas3, int > >>>> usermode) > >>>>> return mas3; > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) > >>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) > >>>>> { > >>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; > >>>>> + > >>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > >>>>> + > >>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { > >>>> > >>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >>> > >>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is > >>> that it > >> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not marked > >> as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter whether the > >> page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it is DDR. > >>> > >> > >> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If > >> so, > >> > >> KVM: direct mmio pfn check > >> > >> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio > >> pages rather than > >> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these mmio > pages > >> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. > > > > Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking PageReserved helps in > those cases? > > No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should be > chronically persistent as I understand ;-) Then I will wait till someone educate me :) -Bharat > > Tiejun > > > > > -Bharat > > > >> > >> Tiejun > >> > >>> -Bharat > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Tiejun > >>>> > >>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; > >>>>> + } else { > >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > >>>>> - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; > >>>>> -#else > >>>>> - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > >>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; > >>>>> #endif > >>>>> + } > >>>>> + return mas2_attr; > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> /* > >>>>> @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( > >>>>> /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ > >>>>> stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; > >>>>> stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | > >>>>> - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); > >>>>> + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); > >>>>> stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | > >>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in > >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo > >> info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 8:22 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 DQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogIuKAnHRpZWp1bi5jaGVu 4oCdIiBbbWFpbHRvOnRpZWp1bi5jaGVuQHdpbmRyaXZlci5jb21dDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5 LCBKdWx5IDE4LCAyMDEzIDE6NTIgUE0NCj4gVG86IEJodXNoYW4gQmhhcmF0LVI2NTc3Nw0KPiBD Yzoga3ZtLXBwY0B2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmc7IGt2bUB2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmc7IGFncmFmQHN1 c2UuZGU7IFdvb2QgU2NvdHQtDQo+IEIwNzQyMQ0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW1BBVENIIDIvMl0g a3ZtOiBwb3dlcnBjOiBzZXQgY2FjaGUgY29oZXJlbmN5IG9ubHkgZm9yIGtlcm5lbA0KPiBtYW5h Z2VkIHBhZ2VzDQo+IA0KPiBPbiAwNy8xOC8yMDEzIDA0OjA4IFBNLCBCaHVzaGFuIEJoYXJhdC1S NjU3Nzcgd3JvdGU6DQo+ID4NCj4gPg0KPiA+PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0K PiA+PiBGcm9tOiBrdm0tcHBjLW93bmVyQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZw0KPiA+PiBbbWFpbHRvOmt2 bS1wcGMtb3duZXJAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgIuKAnHRpZWp1bi5jaGVu 4oCdIg0KPiA+PiBTZW50OiBUaHVyc2RheSwgSnVseSAxOCwgMjAxMyAxOjAxIFBNDQo+ID4+IFRv OiBCaHVzaGFuIEJoYXJhdC1SNjU3NzcNCj4gPj4gQ2M6IGt2bS1wcGNAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3Jn OyBrdm1Admdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnOyBhZ3JhZkBzdXNlLmRlOyBXb29kDQo+ID4+IFNjb3R0LQ0K PiA+PiBCMDc0MjENCj4gPj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtQQVRDSCAyLzJdIGt2bTogcG93ZXJwYzog c2V0IGNhY2hlIGNvaGVyZW5jeSBvbmx5IGZvcg0KPiA+PiBrZXJuZWwgbWFuYWdlZCBwYWdlcw0K PiA+Pg0KPiA+PiBPbiAwNy8xOC8yMDEzIDAzOjEyIFBNLCBCaHVzaGFuIEJoYXJhdC1SNjU3Nzcg d3JvdGU6DQo+ID4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4NCj4gPj4+PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0K PiA+Pj4+IEZyb206ICLigJx0aWVqdW4uY2hlbuKAnSIgW21haWx0bzp0aWVqdW4uY2hlbkB3aW5k cml2ZXIuY29tXQ0KPiA+Pj4+IFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBKdWx5IDE4LCAyMDEzIDExOjU2IEFN DQo+ID4+Pj4gVG86IEJodXNoYW4gQmhhcmF0LVI2NTc3Nw0KPiA+Pj4+IENjOiBrdm0tcHBjQHZn ZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsga3ZtQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsgYWdyYWZAc3VzZS5kZTsNCj4gPj4+ PiBXb29kDQo+ID4+Pj4gU2NvdHQtIEIwNzQyMTsgQmh1c2hhbiBCaGFyYXQtUjY1Nzc3DQo+ID4+ Pj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtQQVRDSCAyLzJdIGt2bTogcG93ZXJwYzogc2V0IGNhY2hlIGNvaGVy ZW5jeSBvbmx5IGZvcg0KPiA+Pj4+IGtlcm5lbCBtYW5hZ2VkIHBhZ2VzDQo+ID4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+ PiBPbiAwNy8xOC8yMDEzIDAyOjA0IFBNLCBCaGFyYXQgQmh1c2hhbiB3cm90ZToNCj4gPj4+Pj4g SWYgdGhlcmUgaXMgYSBzdHJ1Y3QgcGFnZSBmb3IgdGhlIHJlcXVlc3RlZCBtYXBwaW5nIHRoZW4g aXQncw0KPiA+Pj4+PiBub3JtYWwgRERSIGFuZCB0aGUgbWFwcGluZyBzZXRzICJNIiBiaXQgKGNv aGVyZW50LCBjYWNoZWFibGUpIGVsc2UNCj4gPj4+Pj4gdGhpcyBpcyB0cmVhdGVkIGFzIEkvTyBh bmQgd2Ugc2V0ICAiSSArIEciICAoY2FjaGUgaW5oaWJpdGVkLA0KPiA+Pj4+PiBndWFyZGVkKQ0K PiA+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+PiBUaGlzIGhlbHBzIHNldHRpbmcgcHJvcGVyIFRMQiBtYXBwaW5nIGZv ciBkaXJlY3QgYXNzaWduZWQgZGV2aWNlDQo+ID4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+IFNpZ25lZC1vZmYtYnk6 IEJoYXJhdCBCaHVzaGFuIDxiaGFyYXQuYmh1c2hhbkBmcmVlc2NhbGUuY29tPg0KPiA+Pj4+PiAt LS0NCj4gPj4+Pj4gICAgIGFyY2gvcG93ZXJwYy9rdm0vZTUwMF9tbXVfaG9zdC5jIHwgICAxNyAr KysrKysrKysrKystLS0tLQ0KPiA+Pj4+PiAgICAgMSBmaWxlcyBjaGFuZ2VkLCAxMiBpbnNlcnRp b25zKCspLCA1IGRlbGV0aW9ucygtKQ0KPiA+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+PiBkaWZmIC0tZ2l0IGEvYXJj aC9wb3dlcnBjL2t2bS9lNTAwX21tdV9ob3N0LmMNCj4gPj4+Pj4gYi9hcmNoL3Bvd2VycGMva3Zt L2U1MDBfbW11X2hvc3QuYw0KPiA+Pj4+PiBpbmRleCAxYzZhOWQ3Li4wODljMjI3IDEwMDY0NA0K PiA+Pj4+PiAtLS0gYS9hcmNoL3Bvd2VycGMva3ZtL2U1MDBfbW11X2hvc3QuYw0KPiA+Pj4+PiAr KysgYi9hcmNoL3Bvd2VycGMva3ZtL2U1MDBfbW11X2hvc3QuYw0KPiA+Pj4+PiBAQCAtNjQsMTMg KzY0LDIwIEBAIHN0YXRpYyBpbmxpbmUgdTMyIGU1MDBfc2hhZG93X21hczNfYXR0cmliKHUzMg0K PiA+Pj4+PiBtYXMzLCBpbnQNCj4gPj4+PiB1c2VybW9kZSkNCj4gPj4+Pj4gICAgIAlyZXR1cm4g bWFzMzsNCj4gPj4+Pj4gICAgIH0NCj4gPj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4gLXN0YXRpYyBpbmxpbmUgdTMy IGU1MDBfc2hhZG93X21hczJfYXR0cmliKHUzMiBtYXMyLCBpbnQgdXNlcm1vZGUpDQo+ID4+Pj4+ ICtzdGF0aWMgaW5saW5lIHUzMiBlNTAwX3NoYWRvd19tYXMyX2F0dHJpYih1MzIgbWFzMiwgcGZu X3QgcGZuKQ0KPiA+Pj4+PiAgICAgew0KPiA+Pj4+PiArCXUzMiBtYXMyX2F0dHI7DQo+ID4+Pj4+ ICsNCj4gPj4+Pj4gKwltYXMyX2F0dHIgPSBtYXMyICYgTUFTMl9BVFRSSUJfTUFTSzsNCj4gPj4+ Pj4gKw0KPiA+Pj4+PiArCWlmICghcGZuX3ZhbGlkKHBmbikpIHsNCj4gPj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+IFdo eSBub3QgZGlyZWN0bHkgdXNlIGt2bV9pc19tbWlvX3BmbigpPw0KPiA+Pj4NCj4gPj4+IFdoYXQg SSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIGZyb20gdGhpcyBmdW5jdGlvbiAoc29tZW9uZSBjYW4gY29ycmVjdCBtZSkg aXMNCj4gPj4+IHRoYXQgaXQNCj4gPj4gcmV0dXJucyAiZmFsc2UiIHdoZW4gdGhlIHBhZ2UgaXMg bWFuYWdlZCBieSBrZXJuZWwgYW5kIGlzIG5vdCBtYXJrZWQNCj4gPj4gYXMgUkVTRVJWRUQgKGZv ciBzb21lIHJlYXNvbikuIEZvciB1cyBpdCBkb2VzIG5vdCBtYXR0ZXIgd2hldGhlciB0aGUNCj4g Pj4gcGFnZSBpcyByZXNlcnZlZCBvciBub3QsIGlmIGl0IGlzIGtlcm5lbCB2aXNpYmxlIHBhZ2Ug dGhlbiBpdCBpcyBERFIuDQo+ID4+Pg0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+PiBJIHRoaW5rIHlvdSBhcmUgc2V0dGlu ZyBJfEcgYnkgYWRkcmVzc2luZyBhbGwgbW1pbyBwYWdlcywgcmlnaHQ/IElmDQo+ID4+IHNvLA0K PiA+Pg0KPiA+PiAgICAgICBLVk06IGRpcmVjdCBtbWlvIHBmbiBjaGVjaw0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+PiAg ICAgICBVc2Vyc3BhY2UgbWF5IHNwZWNpZnkgbWVtb3J5IHNsb3RzIHRoYXQgYXJlIGJhY2tlZCBi eSBtbWlvDQo+ID4+IHBhZ2VzIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuDQo+ID4+ICAgICAgIG5vcm1hbCBSQU0uICBJ biBzb21lIGNhc2VzIGl0IGlzIG5vdCBlbm91Z2ggdG8gaWRlbnRpZnkgdGhlc2UgbW1pbw0KPiBw YWdlcw0KPiA+PiAgICAgICBieSBwZm5fdmFsaWQoKS4gIFRoaXMgcGF0Y2ggYWRkcyBjaGVja2lu ZyB0aGUgUGFnZVJlc2VydmVkIGFzIHdlbGwuDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBEbyB5b3Uga25vdyB3aGF0IGFy ZSB0aG9zZSAic29tZSBjYXNlcyIgYW5kIGhvdyBjaGVja2luZyBQYWdlUmVzZXJ2ZWQgaGVscHMg aW4NCj4gdGhvc2UgY2FzZXM/DQo+IA0KPiBObywgbXlzZWxmIGRpZG4ndCBzZWUgdGhlc2UgYWN0 dWFsIGNhc2VzIGluIHFlbXUsdG9vLiBCdXQgdGhpcyBzaG91bGQgYmUNCj4gY2hyb25pY2FsbHkg cGVyc2lzdGVudCBhcyBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgOy0pDQoNClRoZW4gSSB3aWxsIHdhaXQgdGlsbCBz b21lb25lIGVkdWNhdGUgbWUgOikNCg0KLUJoYXJhdA0KDQo+IA0KPiBUaWVqdW4NCj4gDQo+ID4N Cj4gPiAtQmhhcmF0DQo+ID4NCj4gPj4NCj4gPj4gVGllanVuDQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+PiAtQmhhcmF0 DQo+ID4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4gVGllanVuDQo+ID4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4gKwkJbWFzMl9h dHRyIHw9IE1BUzJfSSB8IE1BUzJfRzsNCj4gPj4+Pj4gKwl9IGVsc2Ugew0KPiA+Pj4+PiAgICAg I2lmZGVmIENPTkZJR19TTVANCj4gPj4+Pj4gLQlyZXR1cm4gKG1hczIgJiBNQVMyX0FUVFJJQl9N QVNLKSB8IE1BUzJfTTsNCj4gPj4+Pj4gLSNlbHNlDQo+ID4+Pj4+IC0JcmV0dXJuIG1hczIgJiBN QVMyX0FUVFJJQl9NQVNLOw0KPiA+Pj4+PiArCQltYXMyX2F0dHIgfD0gTUFTMl9NOw0KPiA+Pj4+ PiAgICAgI2VuZGlmDQo+ID4+Pj4+ICsJfQ0KPiA+Pj4+PiArCXJldHVybiBtYXMyX2F0dHI7DQo+ ID4+Pj4+ICAgICB9DQo+ID4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+ICAgICAvKg0KPiA+Pj4+PiBAQCAtMzEzLDcg KzMyMCw3IEBAIHN0YXRpYyB2b2lkIGt2bXBwY19lNTAwX3NldHVwX3N0bGJlKA0KPiA+Pj4+PiAg ICAgCS8qIEZvcmNlIElQUk9UPTAgZm9yIGFsbCBndWVzdCBtYXBwaW5ncy4gKi8NCj4gPj4+Pj4g ICAgIAlzdGxiZS0+bWFzMSA9IE1BUzFfVFNJWkUodHNpemUpIHwgZ2V0X3RsYl9zdHMoZ3RsYmUp IHwgTUFTMV9WQUxJRDsNCj4gPj4+Pj4gICAgIAlzdGxiZS0+bWFzMiA9IChndmFkZHIgJiBNQVMy X0VQTikgfA0KPiA+Pj4+PiAtCQkgICAgICBlNTAwX3NoYWRvd19tYXMyX2F0dHJpYihndGxiZS0+ bWFzMiwgcHIpOw0KPiA+Pj4+PiArCQkgICAgICBlNTAwX3NoYWRvd19tYXMyX2F0dHJpYihndGxi ZS0+bWFzMiwgcGZuKTsNCj4gPj4+Pj4gICAgIAlzdGxiZS0+bWFzN18zID0gKCh1NjQpcGZuIDw8 IFBBR0VfU0hJRlQpIHwNCj4gPj4+Pj4gICAgIAkJCWU1MDBfc2hhZG93X21hczNfYXR0cmliKGd0 bGJlLT5tYXM3XzMsIHByKTsNCj4gPj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4NCj4gPj4N Cj4gPj4gLS0NCj4gPj4gVG8gdW5zdWJzY3JpYmUgZnJvbSB0aGlzIGxpc3Q6IHNlbmQgdGhlIGxp bmUgInVuc3Vic2NyaWJlIGt2bS1wcGMiIGluDQo+ID4+IHRoZSBib2R5IG9mIGEgbWVzc2FnZSB0 byBtYWpvcmRvbW9Admdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnIE1vcmUgbWFqb3Jkb21vDQo+ID4+IGluZm8gYXQg aHR0cDovL3ZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZy9tYWpvcmRvbW8taW5mby5odG1sDQo+ID4NCj4gDQoNCg= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 8:21 ` "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 8:25 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 > -----Original Message----- > From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM > To: '"“tiejun.chen”"' > Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- > B07421 > Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel > managed pages > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] > > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM > > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > > Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood > > Scott- > > B07421 > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for > > kernel managed pages > > > > On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org > > >> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" > > >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM > > >> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > > >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; > > >> Wood > > >> Scott- > > >> B07421 > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for > > >> kernel managed pages > > >> > > >> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM > > >>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > > >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; > > >>>> Wood > > >>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > > >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only > > >>>> for kernel managed pages > > >>>> > > >>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > > >>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's > > >>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) > > >>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache > > >>>>> inhibited, > > >>>>> guarded) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> > > >>>>> --- > > >>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > > >>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > > >>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > > >>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 > > >>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > > >>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > > >>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 > > >>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int > > >>>> usermode) > > >>>>> return mas3; > > >>>>> } > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int > > >>>>> usermode) > > >>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) > > >>>>> { > > >>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; > > >>>>> + > > >>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > > >>>>> + > > >>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { > > >>>> > > >>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > > >>> > > >>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is > > >>> that it > > >> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not > > >> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter > > >> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it > is DDR. > > >>> > > >> > > >> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If > > >> so, > > >> > > >> KVM: direct mmio pfn check > > >> > > >> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio > > >> pages rather than > > >> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these > > >> mmio > > pages > > >> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. > > > > > > Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking > > > PageReserved helps in > > those cases? > > > > No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should > > be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) > > Then I will wait till someone educate me :) The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. -Bharat > > >>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; > > >>>>> + } else { > > >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > >>>>> - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; > > >>>>> -#else > > >>>>> - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > > >>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; > > >>>>> #endif > > >>>>> + } > > >>>>> + return mas2_attr; > > >>>>> } > > >>>>> > > >>>>> /* > > >>>>> @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( > > >>>>> /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ > > >>>>> stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; > > >>>>> stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | > > >>>>> - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); > > >>>>> + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); > > >>>>> stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | > > >>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" > > >> in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More > > >> majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 8:25 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 DQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogQmh1c2hhbiBCaGFyYXQt UjY1Nzc3DQo+IFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBKdWx5IDE4LCAyMDEzIDE6NTMgUE0NCj4gVG86ICci 4oCcdGllanVuLmNoZW7igJ0iJw0KPiBDYzoga3ZtLXBwY0B2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmc7IGt2bUB2 Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmc7IGFncmFmQHN1c2UuZGU7IFdvb2QgU2NvdHQtDQo+IEIwNzQyMQ0KPiBT dWJqZWN0OiBSRTogW1BBVENIIDIvMl0ga3ZtOiBwb3dlcnBjOiBzZXQgY2FjaGUgY29oZXJlbmN5 IG9ubHkgZm9yIGtlcm5lbA0KPiBtYW5hZ2VkIHBhZ2VzDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+ID4gLS0tLS1P cmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gPiBGcm9tOiAi4oCcdGllanVuLmNoZW7igJ0iIFttYWls dG86dGllanVuLmNoZW5Ad2luZHJpdmVyLmNvbV0NCj4gPiBTZW50OiBUaHVyc2RheSwgSnVseSAx OCwgMjAxMyAxOjUyIFBNDQo+ID4gVG86IEJodXNoYW4gQmhhcmF0LVI2NTc3Nw0KPiA+IENjOiBr dm0tcHBjQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsga3ZtQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsgYWdyYWZAc3VzZS5k ZTsgV29vZA0KPiA+IFNjb3R0LQ0KPiA+IEIwNzQyMQ0KPiA+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbUEFUQ0gg Mi8yXSBrdm06IHBvd2VycGM6IHNldCBjYWNoZSBjb2hlcmVuY3kgb25seSBmb3INCj4gPiBrZXJu ZWwgbWFuYWdlZCBwYWdlcw0KPiA+DQo+ID4gT24gMDcvMTgvMjAxMyAwNDowOCBQTSwgQmh1c2hh biBCaGFyYXQtUjY1Nzc3IHdyb3RlOg0KPiA+ID4NCj4gPiA+DQo+ID4gPj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5h bCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gPiA+PiBGcm9tOiBrdm0tcHBjLW93bmVyQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9y Zw0KPiA+ID4+IFttYWlsdG86a3ZtLXBwYy1vd25lckB2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFs ZiBPZiAi4oCcdGllanVuLmNoZW7igJ0iDQo+ID4gPj4gU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXksIEp1bHkgMTgs IDIwMTMgMTowMSBQTQ0KPiA+ID4+IFRvOiBCaHVzaGFuIEJoYXJhdC1SNjU3NzcNCj4gPiA+PiBD Yzoga3ZtLXBwY0B2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmc7IGt2bUB2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmc7IGFncmFmQHN1 c2UuZGU7DQo+ID4gPj4gV29vZA0KPiA+ID4+IFNjb3R0LQ0KPiA+ID4+IEIwNzQyMQ0KPiA+ID4+ IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbUEFUQ0ggMi8yXSBrdm06IHBvd2VycGM6IHNldCBjYWNoZSBjb2hlcmVu Y3kgb25seSBmb3INCj4gPiA+PiBrZXJuZWwgbWFuYWdlZCBwYWdlcw0KPiA+ID4+DQo+ID4gPj4g T24gMDcvMTgvMjAxMyAwMzoxMiBQTSwgQmh1c2hhbiBCaGFyYXQtUjY1Nzc3IHdyb3RlOg0KPiA+ ID4+Pg0KPiA+ID4+Pg0KPiA+ID4+Pj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gPiA+ Pj4+IEZyb206ICLigJx0aWVqdW4uY2hlbuKAnSIgW21haWx0bzp0aWVqdW4uY2hlbkB3aW5kcml2 ZXIuY29tXQ0KPiA+ID4+Pj4gU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXksIEp1bHkgMTgsIDIwMTMgMTE6NTYgQU0N Cj4gPiA+Pj4+IFRvOiBCaHVzaGFuIEJoYXJhdC1SNjU3NzcNCj4gPiA+Pj4+IENjOiBrdm0tcHBj QHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsga3ZtQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsgYWdyYWZAc3VzZS5kZTsNCj4g PiA+Pj4+IFdvb2QNCj4gPiA+Pj4+IFNjb3R0LSBCMDc0MjE7IEJodXNoYW4gQmhhcmF0LVI2NTc3 Nw0KPiA+ID4+Pj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtQQVRDSCAyLzJdIGt2bTogcG93ZXJwYzogc2V0IGNh Y2hlIGNvaGVyZW5jeSBvbmx5DQo+ID4gPj4+PiBmb3Iga2VybmVsIG1hbmFnZWQgcGFnZXMNCj4g PiA+Pj4+DQo+ID4gPj4+PiBPbiAwNy8xOC8yMDEzIDAyOjA0IFBNLCBCaGFyYXQgQmh1c2hhbiB3 cm90ZToNCj4gPiA+Pj4+PiBJZiB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIHN0cnVjdCBwYWdlIGZvciB0aGUgcmVxdWVz dGVkIG1hcHBpbmcgdGhlbiBpdCdzDQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4gbm9ybWFsIEREUiBhbmQgdGhlIG1hcHBp bmcgc2V0cyAiTSIgYml0IChjb2hlcmVudCwgY2FjaGVhYmxlKQ0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+IGVsc2UgdGhp cyBpcyB0cmVhdGVkIGFzIEkvTyBhbmQgd2Ugc2V0ICAiSSArIEciICAoY2FjaGUNCj4gPiA+Pj4+ PiBpbmhpYml0ZWQsDQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4gZ3VhcmRlZCkNCj4gPiA+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+IFRo aXMgaGVscHMgc2V0dGluZyBwcm9wZXIgVExCIG1hcHBpbmcgZm9yIGRpcmVjdCBhc3NpZ25lZCBk ZXZpY2UNCj4gPiA+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+IFNpZ25lZC1vZmYtYnk6IEJoYXJhdCBCaHVzaGFu IDxiaGFyYXQuYmh1c2hhbkBmcmVlc2NhbGUuY29tPg0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+IC0tLQ0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+ ICAgICBhcmNoL3Bvd2VycGMva3ZtL2U1MDBfbW11X2hvc3QuYyB8ICAgMTcgKysrKysrKysrKysr LS0tLS0NCj4gPiA+Pj4+PiAgICAgMSBmaWxlcyBjaGFuZ2VkLCAxMiBpbnNlcnRpb25zKCspLCA1 IGRlbGV0aW9ucygtKQ0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+DQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4gZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL2FyY2gvcG93 ZXJwYy9rdm0vZTUwMF9tbXVfaG9zdC5jDQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4gYi9hcmNoL3Bvd2VycGMva3ZtL2U1 MDBfbW11X2hvc3QuYw0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+IGluZGV4IDFjNmE5ZDcuLjA4OWMyMjcgMTAwNjQ0DQo+ ID4gPj4+Pj4gLS0tIGEvYXJjaC9wb3dlcnBjL2t2bS9lNTAwX21tdV9ob3N0LmMNCj4gPiA+Pj4+ PiArKysgYi9hcmNoL3Bvd2VycGMva3ZtL2U1MDBfbW11X2hvc3QuYw0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+IEBAIC02 NCwxMyArNjQsMjAgQEAgc3RhdGljIGlubGluZSB1MzINCj4gPiA+Pj4+PiBlNTAwX3NoYWRvd19t YXMzX2F0dHJpYih1MzIgbWFzMywgaW50DQo+ID4gPj4+PiB1c2VybW9kZSkNCj4gPiA+Pj4+PiAg ICAgCXJldHVybiBtYXMzOw0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+ICAgICB9DQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4NCj4gPiA+Pj4+PiAt c3RhdGljIGlubGluZSB1MzIgZTUwMF9zaGFkb3dfbWFzMl9hdHRyaWIodTMyIG1hczIsIGludA0K PiA+ID4+Pj4+IHVzZXJtb2RlKQ0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+ICtzdGF0aWMgaW5saW5lIHUzMiBlNTAwX3No YWRvd19tYXMyX2F0dHJpYih1MzIgbWFzMiwgcGZuX3QgcGZuKQ0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+ICAgICB7DQo+ ID4gPj4+Pj4gKwl1MzIgbWFzMl9hdHRyOw0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+ICsNCj4gPiA+Pj4+PiArCW1hczJf YXR0ciA9IG1hczIgJiBNQVMyX0FUVFJJQl9NQVNLOw0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+ICsNCj4gPiA+Pj4+PiAr CWlmICghcGZuX3ZhbGlkKHBmbikpIHsNCj4gPiA+Pj4+DQo+ID4gPj4+PiBXaHkgbm90IGRpcmVj dGx5IHVzZSBrdm1faXNfbW1pb19wZm4oKT8NCj4gPiA+Pj4NCj4gPiA+Pj4gV2hhdCBJIHVuZGVy c3RhbmQgZnJvbSB0aGlzIGZ1bmN0aW9uIChzb21lb25lIGNhbiBjb3JyZWN0IG1lKSBpcw0KPiA+ ID4+PiB0aGF0IGl0DQo+ID4gPj4gcmV0dXJucyAiZmFsc2UiIHdoZW4gdGhlIHBhZ2UgaXMgbWFu YWdlZCBieSBrZXJuZWwgYW5kIGlzIG5vdA0KPiA+ID4+IG1hcmtlZCBhcyBSRVNFUlZFRCAoZm9y IHNvbWUgcmVhc29uKS4gRm9yIHVzIGl0IGRvZXMgbm90IG1hdHRlcg0KPiA+ID4+IHdoZXRoZXIg dGhlIHBhZ2UgaXMgcmVzZXJ2ZWQgb3Igbm90LCBpZiBpdCBpcyBrZXJuZWwgdmlzaWJsZSBwYWdl IHRoZW4gaXQNCj4gaXMgRERSLg0KPiA+ID4+Pg0KPiA+ID4+DQo+ID4gPj4gSSB0aGluayB5b3Ug YXJlIHNldHRpbmcgSXxHIGJ5IGFkZHJlc3NpbmcgYWxsIG1taW8gcGFnZXMsIHJpZ2h0PyBJZg0K PiA+ID4+IHNvLA0KPiA+ID4+DQo+ID4gPj4gICAgICAgS1ZNOiBkaXJlY3QgbW1pbyBwZm4gY2hl Y2sNCj4gPiA+Pg0KPiA+ID4+ICAgICAgIFVzZXJzcGFjZSBtYXkgc3BlY2lmeSBtZW1vcnkgc2xv dHMgdGhhdCBhcmUgYmFja2VkIGJ5IG1taW8NCj4gPiA+PiBwYWdlcyByYXRoZXIgdGhhbg0KPiA+ ID4+ICAgICAgIG5vcm1hbCBSQU0uICBJbiBzb21lIGNhc2VzIGl0IGlzIG5vdCBlbm91Z2ggdG8g aWRlbnRpZnkgdGhlc2UNCj4gPiA+PiBtbWlvDQo+ID4gcGFnZXMNCj4gPiA+PiAgICAgICBieSBw Zm5fdmFsaWQoKS4gIFRoaXMgcGF0Y2ggYWRkcyBjaGVja2luZyB0aGUgUGFnZVJlc2VydmVkIGFz IHdlbGwuDQo+ID4gPg0KPiA+ID4gRG8geW91IGtub3cgd2hhdCBhcmUgdGhvc2UgInNvbWUgY2Fz ZXMiIGFuZCBob3cgY2hlY2tpbmcNCj4gPiA+IFBhZ2VSZXNlcnZlZCBoZWxwcyBpbg0KPiA+IHRo b3NlIGNhc2VzPw0KPiA+DQo+ID4gTm8sIG15c2VsZiBkaWRuJ3Qgc2VlIHRoZXNlIGFjdHVhbCBj YXNlcyBpbiBxZW11LHRvby4gQnV0IHRoaXMgc2hvdWxkDQo+ID4gYmUgY2hyb25pY2FsbHkgcGVy c2lzdGVudCBhcyBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgOy0pDQo+IA0KPiBUaGVuIEkgd2lsbCB3YWl0IHRpbGwg c29tZW9uZSBlZHVjYXRlIG1lIDopDQoNClRoZSByZWFzb24gaXMgLCBrdm1faXNfbW1pb19wZm4o KSBmdW5jdGlvbiBsb29rcyBwcmV0dHkgaGVhdnkgYW5kIEkgZG8gbm90IHdhbnQgdG8gY2FsbCB0 aGlzIGZvciBhbGwgdGxid2Ugb3BlcmF0aW9uIHVubGVzcyBpdCBpcyBuZWNlc3NhcnkuDQoNCi1C aGFyYXQNCg0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+ICsJCW1hczJfYXR0ciB8PSBNQVMyX0kgfCBNQVMyX0c7DQo+ID4g Pj4+Pj4gKwl9IGVsc2Ugew0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+ICAgICAjaWZkZWYgQ09ORklHX1NNUA0KPiA+ID4+ Pj4+IC0JcmV0dXJuIChtYXMyICYgTUFTMl9BVFRSSUJfTUFTSykgfCBNQVMyX007DQo+ID4gPj4+ Pj4gLSNlbHNlDQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4gLQlyZXR1cm4gbWFzMiAmIE1BUzJfQVRUUklCX01BU0s7DQo+ ID4gPj4+Pj4gKwkJbWFzMl9hdHRyIHw9IE1BUzJfTTsNCj4gPiA+Pj4+PiAgICAgI2VuZGlmDQo+ ID4gPj4+Pj4gKwl9DQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4gKwlyZXR1cm4gbWFzMl9hdHRyOw0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+ICAg ICB9DQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4NCj4gPiA+Pj4+PiAgICAgLyoNCj4gPiA+Pj4+PiBAQCAtMzEzLDcgKzMy MCw3IEBAIHN0YXRpYyB2b2lkIGt2bXBwY19lNTAwX3NldHVwX3N0bGJlKA0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+ICAg ICAJLyogRm9yY2UgSVBST1Q9MCBmb3IgYWxsIGd1ZXN0IG1hcHBpbmdzLiAqLw0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+ ICAgICAJc3RsYmUtPm1hczEgPSBNQVMxX1RTSVpFKHRzaXplKSB8IGdldF90bGJfc3RzKGd0bGJl KSB8IE1BUzFfVkFMSUQ7DQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4gICAgIAlzdGxiZS0+bWFzMiA9IChndmFkZHIgJiBN QVMyX0VQTikgfA0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+IC0JCSAgICAgIGU1MDBfc2hhZG93X21hczJfYXR0cmliKGd0 bGJlLT5tYXMyLCBwcik7DQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4gKwkJICAgICAgZTUwMF9zaGFkb3dfbWFzMl9hdHRy aWIoZ3RsYmUtPm1hczIsIHBmbik7DQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4gICAgIAlzdGxiZS0+bWFzN18zID0gKCh1 NjQpcGZuIDw8IFBBR0VfU0hJRlQpIHwNCj4gPiA+Pj4+PiAgICAgCQkJZTUwMF9zaGFkb3dfbWFz M19hdHRyaWIoZ3RsYmUtPm1hczdfMywgcHIpOw0KPiA+ID4+Pj4+DQo+ID4gPj4+Pj4NCj4gPiA+ Pj4+DQo+ID4gPj4+DQo+ID4gPj4NCj4gPiA+PiAtLQ0KPiA+ID4+IFRvIHVuc3Vic2NyaWJlIGZy b20gdGhpcyBsaXN0OiBzZW5kIHRoZSBsaW5lICJ1bnN1YnNjcmliZSBrdm0tcHBjIg0KPiA+ID4+ IGluIHRoZSBib2R5IG9mIGEgbWVzc2FnZSB0byBtYWpvcmRvbW9Admdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnIE1v cmUNCj4gPiA+PiBtYWpvcmRvbW8gaW5mbyBhdCBodHRwOi8vdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnL21ham9y ZG9tby1pbmZvLmh0bWwNCj4gPiA+DQo+ID4NCg0K ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 8:25 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 8:55 ` "“tiejun.chen”" -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; +Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 04:25 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >> To: '"“tiejun.chen”"' >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >> B07421 >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >> managed pages >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>> Scott- >>> B07421 >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>> kernel managed pages >>> >>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>> Wood >>>>> Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>> >>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>> that it >>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >> is DDR. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>> so, >>>>> >>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>> >>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>> pages rather than >>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>> mmio >>> pages >>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>> >>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>> PageReserved helps in >>> those cases? >>> >>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >> >> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) > > The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. Furthermore, how to distinguish we're creating TLB entry for the device assigned directly to the GS? I think its unnecessary to always check if that is mmio's pfn since we have more non direct assigned devices. So maybe we can introduce another helper to fixup that TLB entry in instead of this path. Tiejun > > -Bharat > >>>>>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; >>>>>>>> + } else { >>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP >>>>>>>> - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; >>>>>>>> -#else >>>>>>>> - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; >>>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>> + return mas2_attr; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /* >>>>>>>> @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( >>>>>>>> /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ >>>>>>>> stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; >>>>>>>> stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | >>>>>>>> - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); >>>>>>>> + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); >>>>>>>> stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | >>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" >>>>> in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More >>>>> majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>> >>> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 8:55 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; +Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 04:25 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >> To: '"“tiejun.chen”"' >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >> B07421 >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >> managed pages >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>> Scott- >>> B07421 >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>> kernel managed pages >>> >>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>> Wood >>>>> Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>> >>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>> that it >>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >> is DDR. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>> so, >>>>> >>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>> >>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>> pages rather than >>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>> mmio >>> pages >>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>> >>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>> PageReserved helps in >>> those cases? >>> >>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >> >> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) > > The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. Furthermore, how to distinguish we're creating TLB entry for the device assigned directly to the GS? I think its unnecessary to always check if that is mmio's pfn since we have more non direct assigned devices. So maybe we can introduce another helper to fixup that TLB entry in instead of this path. Tiejun > > -Bharat > >>>>>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; >>>>>>>> + } else { >>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP >>>>>>>> - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; >>>>>>>> -#else >>>>>>>> - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>> + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; >>>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>> + return mas2_attr; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /* >>>>>>>> @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( >>>>>>>> /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ >>>>>>>> stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; >>>>>>>> stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | >>>>>>>> - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); >>>>>>>> + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); >>>>>>>> stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | >>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" >>>>> in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More >>>>> majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>> >>> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 8:55 ` "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 9:44 ` Alexander Graf -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: “tiejun.chen” Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 18.07.2013, at 10:55, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > On 07/18/2013 04:25 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>> To: '"“tiejun.chen”"' >>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>> B07421 >>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>> managed pages >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>> Scott- >>>> B07421 >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>> kernel managed pages >>>> >>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>> Wood >>>>>> Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>> that it >>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>> is DDR. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>> so, >>>>>> >>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>> >>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>> mmio >>>> pages >>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>> >>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>> those cases? >>>> >>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>> >>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >> >> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. > > Furthermore, how to distinguish we're creating TLB entry for the device assigned directly to the GS? Because other devices wouldn't be available to the guest through memory slots. > I think its unnecessary to always check if that is mmio's pfn since we have more non direct assigned devices. I'm not sure I understand. The shadow TLB code only knows "here is a host virtual address". It needs to figure out whether the host physical address behind that is RAM (can access with cache enabled) or not (has to disable cache) > So maybe we can introduce another helper to fixup that TLB entry in instead of this path. This path does fix up the shadow (host) TLB entry :). Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 9:44 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: “tiejun.chen” Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 18.07.2013, at 10:55, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > On 07/18/2013 04:25 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>> To: '"“tiejun.chen”"' >>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>> B07421 >>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>> managed pages >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>> Scott- >>>> B07421 >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>> kernel managed pages >>>> >>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>> Wood >>>>>> Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>> that it >>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>> is DDR. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>> so, >>>>>> >>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>> >>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>> mmio >>>> pages >>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>> >>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>> those cases? >>>> >>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>> >>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >> >> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. > > Furthermore, how to distinguish we're creating TLB entry for the device assigned directly to the GS? Because other devices wouldn't be available to the guest through memory slots. > I think its unnecessary to always check if that is mmio's pfn since we have more non direct assigned devices. I'm not sure I understand. The shadow TLB code only knows "here is a host virtual address". It needs to figure out whether the host physical address behind that is RAM (can access with cache enabled) or not (has to disable cache) > So maybe we can introduce another helper to fixup that TLB entry in instead of this path. This path does fix up the shadow (host) TLB entry :). Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 9:44 ` Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 9:56 ` "“tiejun.chen”" -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf; +Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 05:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 18.07.2013, at 10:55, �tiejun.chen� wrote: > >> On 07/18/2013 04:25 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>> B07421 >>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>> managed pages >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>> Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>> so, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>> mmio >>>>> pages >>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>> those cases? >>>>> >>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>> >>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>> >>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >> >> Furthermore, how to distinguish we're creating TLB entry for the device assigned directly to the GS? > > Because other devices wouldn't be available to the guest through memory slots. Yes. > >> I think its unnecessary to always check if that is mmio's pfn since we have more non direct assigned devices. > > I'm not sure I understand. The shadow TLB code only knows "here is a host virtual address". It needs to figure out whether the host physical address behind that is RAM (can access with cache enabled) or not (has to disable cache) > Sorry, looks I'm misleading you :-P >> So maybe we can introduce another helper to fixup that TLB entry in instead of this path. > > This path does fix up the shadow (host) TLB entry :). > I just mean whether we can have a separate path dedicated to those direct assigned devices, not go this common path :) Tiejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 9:56 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf; +Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 05:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 18.07.2013, at 10:55, �tiejun.chen� wrote: > >> On 07/18/2013 04:25 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>> B07421 >>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>> managed pages >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>> Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>> so, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>> mmio >>>>> pages >>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>> those cases? >>>>> >>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>> >>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>> >>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >> >> Furthermore, how to distinguish we're creating TLB entry for the device assigned directly to the GS? > > Because other devices wouldn't be available to the guest through memory slots. Yes. > >> I think its unnecessary to always check if that is mmio's pfn since we have more non direct assigned devices. > > I'm not sure I understand. The shadow TLB code only knows "here is a host virtual address". It needs to figure out whether the host physical address behind that is RAM (can access with cache enabled) or not (has to disable cache) > Sorry, looks I'm misleading you :-P >> So maybe we can introduce another helper to fixup that TLB entry in instead of this path. > > This path does fix up the shadow (host) TLB entry :). > I just mean whether we can have a separate path dedicated to those direct assigned devices, not go this common path :) Tiejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 9:56 ` "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 10:00 ` Alexander Graf -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: “tiejun.chen” Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 18.07.2013, at 11:56, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > On 07/18/2013 05:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 18.07.2013, at 10:55, �tiejun.chen� wrote: >> >>> On 07/18/2013 04:25 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>> managed pages >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>> Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>> pages >>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>> those cases? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>> >>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>> >>> Furthermore, how to distinguish we're creating TLB entry for the device assigned directly to the GS? >> >> Because other devices wouldn't be available to the guest through memory slots. > > Yes. > >> >>> I think its unnecessary to always check if that is mmio's pfn since we have more non direct assigned devices. >> >> I'm not sure I understand. The shadow TLB code only knows "here is a host virtual address". It needs to figure out whether the host physical address behind that is RAM (can access with cache enabled) or not (has to disable cache) >> > > Sorry, looks I'm misleading you :-P > >>> So maybe we can introduce another helper to fixup that TLB entry in instead of this path. >> >> This path does fix up the shadow (host) TLB entry :). >> > > I just mean whether we can have a separate path dedicated to those direct assigned devices, not go this common path :) I don't think it's possible to have a separate path without a certain level of trust. In the current flow we don't trust anyone. We just check every translated page whether we should enable caching or not. We could take that information from 2 other side though: 1) Memory Slot 2) Guest TLB Flags If we take it from the memory slot we would have to trust QEMU (or any other user space) to give us the right hints. Malicious user space could set invalid flags. Also we'd have to add logic to track this - which doesn't exist today. If we take it from the guest we have to trust the guest. Malicious guests could set invalid flags. Now why is setting invalid flags a problem? If I understand Scott correctly, it can break the host if you access certain host devices with caching enabled. But to be sure I'd say we ask him directly :). Either way, not trusting anyone is definitely the safer choice. Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 10:00 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: “tiejun.chen” Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 18.07.2013, at 11:56, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > On 07/18/2013 05:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 18.07.2013, at 10:55, �tiejun.chen� wrote: >> >>> On 07/18/2013 04:25 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>> managed pages >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>> Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>> pages >>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>> those cases? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>> >>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>> >>> Furthermore, how to distinguish we're creating TLB entry for the device assigned directly to the GS? >> >> Because other devices wouldn't be available to the guest through memory slots. > > Yes. > >> >>> I think its unnecessary to always check if that is mmio's pfn since we have more non direct assigned devices. >> >> I'm not sure I understand. The shadow TLB code only knows "here is a host virtual address". It needs to figure out whether the host physical address behind that is RAM (can access with cache enabled) or not (has to disable cache) >> > > Sorry, looks I'm misleading you :-P > >>> So maybe we can introduce another helper to fixup that TLB entry in instead of this path. >> >> This path does fix up the shadow (host) TLB entry :). >> > > I just mean whether we can have a separate path dedicated to those direct assigned devices, not go this common path :) I don't think it's possible to have a separate path without a certain level of trust. In the current flow we don't trust anyone. We just check every translated page whether we should enable caching or not. We could take that information from 2 other side though: 1) Memory Slot 2) Guest TLB Flags If we take it from the memory slot we would have to trust QEMU (or any other user space) to give us the right hints. Malicious user space could set invalid flags. Also we'd have to add logic to track this - which doesn't exist today. If we take it from the guest we have to trust the guest. Malicious guests could set invalid flags. Now why is setting invalid flags a problem? If I understand Scott correctly, it can break the host if you access certain host devices with caching enabled. But to be sure I'd say we ask him directly :). Either way, not trusting anyone is definitely the safer choice. Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 10:00 ` Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 10:14 ` "“tiejun.chen”" -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf; +Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 06:00 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 18.07.2013, at 11:56, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > >> On 07/18/2013 05:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:55, �tiejun.chen� wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/18/2013 04:25 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>>> managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>>> those cases? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>>> >>>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, how to distinguish we're creating TLB entry for the device assigned directly to the GS? >>> >>> Because other devices wouldn't be available to the guest through memory slots. >> >> Yes. >> >>> >>>> I think its unnecessary to always check if that is mmio's pfn since we have more non direct assigned devices. >>> >>> I'm not sure I understand. The shadow TLB code only knows "here is a host virtual address". It needs to figure out whether the host physical address behind that is RAM (can access with cache enabled) or not (has to disable cache) >>> >> >> Sorry, looks I'm misleading you :-P >> >>>> So maybe we can introduce another helper to fixup that TLB entry in instead of this path. >>> >>> This path does fix up the shadow (host) TLB entry :). >>> >> >> I just mean whether we can have a separate path dedicated to those direct assigned devices, not go this common path :) > > I don't think it's possible to have a separate path without a certain level of trust. In the current flow we don't trust anyone. We just check every translated page whether we should enable caching or not. > > We could take that information from 2 other side though: > > 1) Memory Slot > 2) Guest TLB Flags > > If we take it from the memory slot we would have to trust QEMU (or any other user space) to give us the right hints. Malicious user space could set invalid flags. Also we'd have to add logic to track this - which doesn't exist today. > > If we take it from the guest we have to trust the guest. Malicious guests could set invalid flags. Understood. > > Now why is setting invalid flags a problem? If I understand Scott correctly, it can break the host if you access certain host devices with caching enabled. But to be sure I'd say we ask him directly :). Yes, we should certainly set I|G for that TLB entry mapping to device. > > Either way, not trusting anyone is definitely the safer choice. Definitely :) Tiejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 10:14 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf; +Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 06:00 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 18.07.2013, at 11:56, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > >> On 07/18/2013 05:44 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:55, �tiejun.chen� wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/18/2013 04:25 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>>> managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>>> those cases? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>>> >>>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, how to distinguish we're creating TLB entry for the device assigned directly to the GS? >>> >>> Because other devices wouldn't be available to the guest through memory slots. >> >> Yes. >> >>> >>>> I think its unnecessary to always check if that is mmio's pfn since we have more non direct assigned devices. >>> >>> I'm not sure I understand. The shadow TLB code only knows "here is a host virtual address". It needs to figure out whether the host physical address behind that is RAM (can access with cache enabled) or not (has to disable cache) >>> >> >> Sorry, looks I'm misleading you :-P >> >>>> So maybe we can introduce another helper to fixup that TLB entry in instead of this path. >>> >>> This path does fix up the shadow (host) TLB entry :). >>> >> >> I just mean whether we can have a separate path dedicated to those direct assigned devices, not go this common path :) > > I don't think it's possible to have a separate path without a certain level of trust. In the current flow we don't trust anyone. We just check every translated page whether we should enable caching or not. > > We could take that information from 2 other side though: > > 1) Memory Slot > 2) Guest TLB Flags > > If we take it from the memory slot we would have to trust QEMU (or any other user space) to give us the right hints. Malicious user space could set invalid flags. Also we'd have to add logic to track this - which doesn't exist today. > > If we take it from the guest we have to trust the guest. Malicious guests could set invalid flags. Understood. > > Now why is setting invalid flags a problem? If I understand Scott correctly, it can break the host if you access certain host devices with caching enabled. But to be sure I'd say we ask him directly :). Yes, we should certainly set I|G for that TLB entry mapping to device. > > Either way, not trusting anyone is definitely the safer choice. Definitely :) Tiejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 10:00 ` Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 16:11 ` Scott Wood -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-07-18 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: “tiejun.chen”, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 05:00:42 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > Now why is setting invalid flags a problem? If I understand Scott > correctly, it can break the host if you access certain host devices > with caching enabled. But to be sure I'd say we ask him directly :). The architecture makes it illegal to mix cacheable and cache-inhibited mappings to the same physical page. Mixing W or M bits is generally bad as well. I've seen it cause machine checks, error interrupts, etc. -- not just corrupting the page in question. -Scott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 16:11 ` Scott Wood 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-07-18 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: “tiejun.chen”, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 05:00:42 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > Now why is setting invalid flags a problem? If I understand Scott > correctly, it can break the host if you access certain host devices > with caching enabled. But to be sure I'd say we ask him directly :). The architecture makes it illegal to mix cacheable and cache-inhibited mappings to the same physical page. Mixing W or M bits is generally bad as well. I've seen it cause machine checks, error interrupts, etc. -- not just corrupting the page in question. -Scott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 8:25 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 9:48 ` Alexander Graf -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >> To: '"“tiejun.chen”"' >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >> B07421 >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >> managed pages >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>> Scott- >>> B07421 >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>> kernel managed pages >>> >>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>> Wood >>>>> Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>> >>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>> that it >>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >> is DDR. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>> so, >>>>> >>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>> >>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>> pages rather than >>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>> mmio >>> pages >>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>> >>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>> PageReserved helps in >>> those cases? >>> >>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >> >> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) > > The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: 1) Non cache coherent DMA 2) Memory hot remove The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON default n if PPC_47x default y so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. Which means I think it's fine to slim this whole thing down to only check for pfn_valid(), as the code does in this patch. It would however be very useful to have a comment there that explains why it's safe to do so. Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 9:48 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >> To: '"“tiejun.chen”"' >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >> B07421 >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >> managed pages >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>> Scott- >>> B07421 >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>> kernel managed pages >>> >>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>> Wood >>>>> Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>> >>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>> that it >>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >> is DDR. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>> so, >>>>> >>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>> >>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>> pages rather than >>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>> mmio >>> pages >>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>> >>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>> PageReserved helps in >>> those cases? >>> >>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >> >> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) > > The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: 1) Non cache coherent DMA 2) Memory hot remove The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON default n if PPC_47x default y so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. Which means I think it's fine to slim this whole thing down to only check for pfn_valid(), as the code does in this patch. It would however be very useful to have a comment there that explains why it's safe to do so. Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 9:48 ` Alexander Graf (?) @ 2013-07-18 9:51 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-18 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 > -----Original Message----- > From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On > Behalf Of Alexander Graf > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:19 PM > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > Cc: "“tiejun.chen”"; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; Wood Scott- > B07421 > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel > managed pages > > > On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM > >> To: '"“tiejun.chen”"' > >> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood > >> Scott- > >> B07421 > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for > >> kernel managed pages > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] > >>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM > >>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; > >>> Wood > >>> Scott- > >>> B07421 > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for > >>> kernel managed pages > >>> > >>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org > >>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "“tiejun.chen”" > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM > >>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; > >>>>> Wood > >>>>> Scott- > >>>>> B07421 > >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only > >>>>> for kernel managed pages > >>>>> > >>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: "“tiejun.chen”" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] > >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM > >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; > >>>>>>> Wood > >>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only > >>>>>>> for kernel managed pages > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > >>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's > >>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) > >>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache > >>>>>>>> inhibited, > >>>>>>>> guarded) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned > >>>>>>>> device > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> > >>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > >>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 > >>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 > >>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int > >>>>>>> usermode) > >>>>>>>> return mas3; > >>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int > >>>>>>>> usermode) > >>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) > >>>>>>>> { > >>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is > >>>>>> that it > >>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not > >>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter > >>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page > >>>>> then it > >> is DDR. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? > >>>>> If so, > >>>>> > >>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check > >>>>> > >>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio > >>>>> pages rather than > >>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these > >>>>> mmio > >>> pages > >>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. > >>>> > >>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking > >>>> PageReserved helps in > >>> those cases? > >>> > >>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this > >>> should be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) > >> > >> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) > > > > The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not > want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. > > It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path > (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check > for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: > > 1) Non cache coherent DMA > 2) Memory hot remove > > The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is > in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we > don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: > > depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON > default n if PPC_47x > default y > > so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). > > Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about > that one either. > > Which means I think it's fine to slim this whole thing down to only check for > pfn_valid(), as the code does in this patch. It would however be very useful to > have a comment there that explains why it's safe to do so. Big thanks for the details :-) Will add a comment. -Bharat ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 9:48 ` Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 10:08 ` "“tiejun.chen”" -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf; +Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>> B07421 >>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>> managed pages >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>> Scott- >>>> B07421 >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>> kernel managed pages >>>> >>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>> Wood >>>>>> Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>> that it >>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>> is DDR. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>> so, >>>>>> >>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>> >>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>> mmio >>>> pages >>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>> >>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>> those cases? >>>> >>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>> >>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >> >> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. > > It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: > > 1) Non cache coherent DMA > 2) Memory hot remove > > The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: > > depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON > default n if PPC_47x > default y > > so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). > > Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. Thanks for this good information :) So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. If I'm wrong please correct me :) Tiejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 10:08 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf; +Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>> B07421 >>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>> managed pages >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>> Scott- >>>> B07421 >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>> kernel managed pages >>>> >>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>> Wood >>>>>> Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>> that it >>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>> is DDR. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>> so, >>>>>> >>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>> >>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>> mmio >>>> pages >>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>> >>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>> those cases? >>>> >>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>> >>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >> >> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. > > It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: > > 1) Non cache coherent DMA > 2) Memory hot remove > > The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: > > depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON > default n if PPC_47x > default y > > so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). > > Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. Thanks for this good information :) So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. If I'm wrong please correct me :) Tiejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 10:08 ` "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 10:12 ` Alexander Graf -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: “tiejun.chen” Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>> B07421 >>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>> managed pages >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>> Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>> so, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>> mmio >>>>> pages >>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>> those cases? >>>>> >>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>> >>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>> >>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >> >> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >> >> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >> 2) Memory hot remove >> >> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >> >> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >> default n if PPC_47x >> default y >> >> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >> >> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. > > Thanks for this good information :) > > So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. > > If I'm wrong please correct me :) You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. I'd rather not like to break x86 :). However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few benchmarks and show us the results? Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 10:12 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: “tiejun.chen” Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>> B07421 >>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>> managed pages >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>> Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>> so, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>> mmio >>>>> pages >>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>> those cases? >>>>> >>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>> >>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>> >>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >> >> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >> >> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >> 2) Memory hot remove >> >> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >> >> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >> default n if PPC_47x >> default y >> >> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >> >> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. > > Thanks for this good information :) > > So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. > > If I'm wrong please correct me :) You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. I'd rather not like to break x86 :). However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few benchmarks and show us the results? Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 10:12 ` Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 10:19 ` "“tiejun.chen”" -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf; +Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 06:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > >> On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>> managed pages >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>> Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>> pages >>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>> those cases? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>> >>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>> >>> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >>> >>> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >>> 2) Memory hot remove >>> >>> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >>> >>> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >>> default n if PPC_47x >>> default y >>> >>> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >>> >>> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. >> >> Thanks for this good information :) >> >> So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. >> >> If I'm wrong please correct me :) > > You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. > > I'd rather not like to break x86 :). > > However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few benchmarks and show us the results? > Often what case should be adopted to validate this scenario? Tiejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 10:19 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf; +Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 06:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > >> On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>> B07421 >>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>> managed pages >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>> Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>> pages >>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>> those cases? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>> >>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>> >>> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >>> >>> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >>> 2) Memory hot remove >>> >>> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >>> >>> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >>> default n if PPC_47x >>> default y >>> >>> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >>> >>> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. >> >> Thanks for this good information :) >> >> So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. >> >> If I'm wrong please correct me :) > > You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. > > I'd rather not like to break x86 :). > > However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few benchmarks and show us the results? > Often what case should be adopted to validate this scenario? Tiejun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 10:19 ` "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 10:27 ` Alexander Graf -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 18.07.2013, at 12:19, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > On 07/18/2013 06:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >> >>> On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>>> managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>>> those cases? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>>> >>>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>>> >>>> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >>>> >>>> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >>>> 2) Memory hot remove >>>> >>>> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >>>> >>>> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >>>> default n if PPC_47x >>>> default y >>>> >>>> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >>>> >>>> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. >>> >>> Thanks for this good information :) >>> >>> So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. >>> >>> If I'm wrong please correct me :) >> >> You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. >> >> I'd rather not like to break x86 :). >> >> However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few benchmarks and show us the results? >> > > Often what case should be adopted to validate this scenario? Something which hammers the TLB emulation heavily. I usually just run /bin/echo a thousand times in "time" and see how long it takes ;) Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 10:27 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-18 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 18.07.2013, at 12:19, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > On 07/18/2013 06:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >> >>> On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>>> B07421 >>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>>> managed pages >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>>> those cases? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>>> >>>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>>> >>>> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >>>> >>>> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >>>> 2) Memory hot remove >>>> >>>> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >>>> >>>> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >>>> default n if PPC_47x >>>> default y >>>> >>>> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >>>> >>>> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. >>> >>> Thanks for this good information :) >>> >>> So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. >>> >>> If I'm wrong please correct me :) >> >> You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. >> >> I'd rather not like to break x86 :). >> >> However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few benchmarks and show us the results? >> > > Often what case should be adopted to validate this scenario? Something which hammers the TLB emulation heavily. I usually just run /bin/echo a thousand times in "time" and see how long it takes ;) Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 10:27 ` Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 2:26 ` "“tiejun.chen”" -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-24 2:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf; +Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 06:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 18.07.2013, at 12:19, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > >> On 07/18/2013 06:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>>>> managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>>>> those cases? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>>>> >>>>> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >>>>> 2) Memory hot remove >>>>> >>>>> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >>>>> >>>>> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >>>>> default n if PPC_47x >>>>> default y >>>>> >>>>> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >>>>> >>>>> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. >>>> >>>> Thanks for this good information :) >>>> >>>> So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. >>>> >>>> If I'm wrong please correct me :) >>> >>> You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. >>> >>> I'd rather not like to break x86 :). >>> >>> However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few benchmarks and show us the results? >>> >> >> Often what case should be adopted to validate this scenario? > > Something which hammers the TLB emulation heavily. I usually just run /bin/echo a thousand times in "time" and see how long it takes ;) > I tried to run five times with this combination, "time `for ((i=0; i<5000; i++)); do /bin/echo; done`", to calculate the average value with this change: diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) { +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG + /* + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. + */ if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { int reserved; struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) } return PageReserved(tail); } +#endif return true; } Before apply this change: real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s After apply this change: real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s So, real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% Note I only boot one VM. Tiejun ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 2:26 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-24 2:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf; +Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm, Wood Scott-B07421 On 07/18/2013 06:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 18.07.2013, at 12:19, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > >> On 07/18/2013 06:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>>>> managed pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>>>> those cases? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>>>> >>>>> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >>>>> 2) Memory hot remove >>>>> >>>>> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >>>>> >>>>> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >>>>> default n if PPC_47x >>>>> default y >>>>> >>>>> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >>>>> >>>>> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. >>>> >>>> Thanks for this good information :) >>>> >>>> So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. >>>> >>>> If I'm wrong please correct me :) >>> >>> You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. >>> >>> I'd rather not like to break x86 :). >>> >>> However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few benchmarks and show us the results? >>> >> >> Often what case should be adopted to validate this scenario? > > Something which hammers the TLB emulation heavily. I usually just run /bin/echo a thousand times in "time" and see how long it takes ;) > I tried to run five times with this combination, "time `for ((i=0; i<5000; i++)); do /bin/echo; done`", to calculate the average value with this change: diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) { +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG + /* + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. + */ if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { int reserved; struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) } return PageReserved(tail); } +#endif return true; } Before apply this change: real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s After apply this change: real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s So, real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% Note I only boot one VM. Tiejun ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 2:26 ` "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-24 8:25 ` Alexander Graf -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini On 24.07.2013, at 04:26, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > On 07/18/2013 06:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 18.07.2013, at 12:19, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >> >>> On 07/18/2013 06:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>>>>> managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>>>>> those cases? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >>>>>> 2) Memory hot remove >>>>>> >>>>>> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >>>>>> >>>>>> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >>>>>> default n if PPC_47x >>>>>> default y >>>>>> >>>>>> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >>>>>> >>>>>> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for this good information :) >>>>> >>>>> So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. >>>>> >>>>> If I'm wrong please correct me :) >>>> >>>> You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. >>>> >>>> I'd rather not like to break x86 :). >>>> >>>> However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few benchmarks and show us the results? >>>> >>> >>> Often what case should be adopted to validate this scenario? >> >> Something which hammers the TLB emulation heavily. I usually just run /bin/echo a thousand times in "time" and see how long it takes ;) >> > > I tried to run five times with this combination, "time `for ((i=0; i<5000; i++)); do /bin/echo; done`", to calculate the average value with this change: > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; > > bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > { > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. > + /* > + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. > + */ > if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. > int reserved; > struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); > @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > } > return PageReserved(tail); > } > +#endif > > return true; > } > > Before apply this change: > > real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s > user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s > sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s > > After apply this change: > > real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s > user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s > sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s > > So, > > real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% > user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% > sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 8:25 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini On 24.07.2013, at 04:26, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > On 07/18/2013 06:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 18.07.2013, at 12:19, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >> >>> On 07/18/2013 06:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>>>>> To: '"�tiejun.chen�"' >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >>>>>>>> managed pages >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of "�tiejun.chen�" >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for >>>>>>>>>>> kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "�tiejun.chen�" [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; agraf@suse.de; >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wood >>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct me) is >>>>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is not >>>>>>>>>>> marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not matter >>>>>>>>>>> whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel visible page then it >>>>>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, right? If >>>>>>>>>>> so, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by mmio >>>>>>>>>>> pages rather than >>>>>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify these >>>>>>>>>>> mmio >>>>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>>>>> those cases? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this should >>>>>>>>> be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >>>>>> 2) Memory hot remove >>>>>> >>>>>> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >>>>>> >>>>>> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >>>>>> default n if PPC_47x >>>>>> default y >>>>>> >>>>>> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >>>>>> >>>>>> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry about that one either. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for this good information :) >>>>> >>>>> So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. >>>>> >>>>> If I'm wrong please correct me :) >>>> >>>> You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. >>>> >>>> I'd rather not like to break x86 :). >>>> >>>> However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few benchmarks and show us the results? >>>> >>> >>> Often what case should be adopted to validate this scenario? >> >> Something which hammers the TLB emulation heavily. I usually just run /bin/echo a thousand times in "time" and see how long it takes ;) >> > > I tried to run five times with this combination, "time `for ((i=0; i<5000; i++)); do /bin/echo; done`", to calculate the average value with this change: > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; > > bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > { > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. > + /* > + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. > + */ > if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. > int reserved; > struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); > @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > } > return PageReserved(tail); > } > +#endif > > return true; > } > > Before apply this change: > > real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s > user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s > sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s > > After apply this change: > > real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s > user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s > sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s > > So, > > real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% > user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% > sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 8:25 ` Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 9:11 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-24 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf, "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de] > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:55 PM > To: "“tiejun.chen”" > Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org list; > Wood Scott-B07421; Gleb Natapov; Paolo Bonzini > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel > managed pages > > > On 24.07.2013, at 04:26, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > > > On 07/18/2013 06:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> > >> On 18.07.2013, at 12:19, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > >> > >>> On 07/18/2013 06:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM > >>>>>>>> To: '" tiejun.chen "' > >>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; > >>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- > >>>>>>>> B07421 > >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only > >>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: " tiejun.chen " [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; > >>>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood > >>>>>>>>> Scott- > >>>>>>>>> B07421 > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency > >>>>>>>>> only for kernel managed pages > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org > >>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of " tiejun.chen " > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM > >>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; > >>>>>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood > >>>>>>>>>>> Scott- > >>>>>>>>>>> B07421 > >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency > >>>>>>>>>>> only for kernel managed pages > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: " tiejun.chen " [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; > >>>>>>>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency > >>>>>>>>>>>>> only for kernel managed pages > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cacheable) else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> G" (cache inhibited, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarded) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> device > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int > >>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> +pfn_t pfn) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct > >>>>>>>>>>>> me) is that it > >>>>>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is > >>>>>>>>>>> not marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not > >>>>>>>>>>> matter whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel > >>>>>>>>>>> visible page then it > >>>>>>>> is DDR. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, > >>>>>>>>>>> right? If so, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by > >>>>>>>>>>> mmio pages rather than > >>>>>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify > >>>>>>>>>>> these mmio > >>>>>>>>> pages > >>>>>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as > well. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking > >>>>>>>>>> PageReserved helps in > >>>>>>>>> those cases? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this > >>>>>>>>> should be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do > not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast > path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to > check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) Non cache coherent DMA > >>>>>> 2) Memory hot remove > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as > it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation > if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON > >>>>>> default n if PPC_47x > >>>>>> default y > >>>>>> > >>>>>> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry > about that one either. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for this good information :) > >>>>> > >>>>> So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside > kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really > needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. > >>>>> > >>>>> If I'm wrong please correct me :) > >>>> > >>>> You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across > all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for > x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. > >>>> > >>>> I'd rather not like to break x86 :). > >>>> > >>>> However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do > you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few > benchmarks and show us the results? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Often what case should be adopted to validate this scenario? > >> > >> Something which hammers the TLB emulation heavily. I usually just run > >> /bin/echo a thousand times in "time" and see how long it takes ;) > >> > > > > I tried to run five times with this combination, "time `for ((i=0; i<5000; > i++)); do /bin/echo; done`", to calculate the average value with this change: > > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c index > > 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 > > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; > > > > bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > > { > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > > I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. > > > + /* > > + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. > > + */ > > if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { > > We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. > > > int reserved; > > struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); @@ -124,6 +128,7 > > @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > > } > > return PageReserved(tail); > > } > > +#endif > > > > return true; > > } > > > > Before apply this change: > > > > real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= > 1m21.376s > > user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= > 0m23.433s > > sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s > > > > After apply this change: > > > > real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= > 1m20.667s > > user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= > 0m22.615s > > sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s > > > > So, > > > > real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% > > user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% > > sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% > > Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, > I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on > e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? -Bharat > > Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? > > > Alex > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 9:11 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-24 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf, "“tiejun.chen”" Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini DQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogQWxleGFuZGVyIEdyYWYg W21haWx0bzphZ3JhZkBzdXNlLmRlXQ0KPiBTZW50OiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIEp1bHkgMjQsIDIwMTMg MTo1NSBQTQ0KPiBUbzogIuKAnHRpZWp1bi5jaGVu4oCdIg0KPiBDYzogQmh1c2hhbiBCaGFyYXQt UjY1Nzc3OyBrdm0tcHBjQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsga3ZtQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZyBsaXN0 Ow0KPiBXb29kIFNjb3R0LUIwNzQyMTsgR2xlYiBOYXRhcG92OyBQYW9sbyBCb256aW5pDQo+IFN1 YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbUEFUQ0ggMi8yXSBrdm06IHBvd2VycGM6IHNldCBjYWNoZSBjb2hlcmVuY3kg b25seSBmb3Iga2VybmVsDQo+IG1hbmFnZWQgcGFnZXMNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBPbiAyNC4wNy4yMDEz LCBhdCAwNDoyNiwg4oCcdGllanVuLmNoZW7igJ0gd3JvdGU6DQo+IA0KPiA+IE9uIDA3LzE4LzIw MTMgMDY6MjcgUE0sIEFsZXhhbmRlciBHcmFmIHdyb3RlOg0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+PiBPbiAxOC4wNy4y MDEzLCBhdCAxMjoxOSwg4oCcdGllanVuLmNoZW7igJ0gd3JvdGU6DQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+PiBPbiAw Ny8xOC8yMDEzIDA2OjEyIFBNLCBBbGV4YW5kZXIgR3JhZiB3cm90ZToNCj4gPj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+ IE9uIDE4LjA3LjIwMTMsIGF0IDEyOjA4LCDigJx0aWVqdW4uY2hlbuKAnSB3cm90ZToNCj4gPj4+ Pg0KPiA+Pj4+PiBPbiAwNy8xOC8yMDEzIDA1OjQ4IFBNLCBBbGV4YW5kZXIgR3JhZiB3cm90ZToN Cj4gPj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+PiBPbiAxOC4wNy4yMDEzLCBhdCAxMDoyNSwgQmh1c2hhbiBCaGFy YXQtUjY1Nzc3IHdyb3RlOg0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+ Pj4+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+IEZyb206IEJodXNoYW4g QmhhcmF0LVI2NTc3Nw0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+PiBTZW50OiBUaHVyc2RheSwgSnVseSAxOCwgMjAxMyAx OjUzIFBNDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+IFRvOiAnIiB0aWVqdW4uY2hlbiAiJw0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+PiBDYzog a3ZtLXBwY0B2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmc7IGt2bUB2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmc7DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+ IGFncmFmQHN1c2UuZGU7IFdvb2QgU2NvdHQtDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+IEIwNzQyMQ0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+ PiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogW1BBVENIIDIvMl0ga3ZtOiBwb3dlcnBjOiBzZXQgY2FjaGUgY29oZXJl bmN5IG9ubHkNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4gZm9yIGtlcm5lbCBtYW5hZ2VkIHBhZ2VzDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+ DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3Nh Z2UtLS0tLQ0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gRnJvbTogIiB0aWVqdW4uY2hlbiAiIFttYWlsdG86dGllanVu LmNoZW5Ad2luZHJpdmVyLmNvbV0NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+IFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBKdWx5IDE4 LCAyMDEzIDE6NTIgUE0NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+IFRvOiBCaHVzaGFuIEJoYXJhdC1SNjU3NzcNCj4g Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IENjOiBrdm0tcHBjQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsga3ZtQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9y ZzsNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+IGFncmFmQHN1c2UuZGU7IFdvb2QNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+IFNjb3R0LQ0K PiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gQjA3NDIxDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW1BBVENIIDIvMl0g a3ZtOiBwb3dlcnBjOiBzZXQgY2FjaGUgY29oZXJlbmN5DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBvbmx5IGZvciBr ZXJuZWwgbWFuYWdlZCBwYWdlcw0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+IE9uIDA3LzE4LzIw MTMgMDQ6MDggUE0sIEJodXNoYW4gQmhhcmF0LVI2NTc3NyB3cm90ZToNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pg0K PiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+ ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IEZyb206IGt2bS1wcGMtb3duZXJAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnDQo+ID4+Pj4+ Pj4+Pj4+IFttYWlsdG86a3ZtLXBwYy1vd25lckB2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBP ZiAiIHRpZWp1bi5jaGVuICINCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXksIEp1bHkgMTgs IDIwMTMgMTowMSBQTQ0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBUbzogQmh1c2hhbiBCaGFyYXQtUjY1Nzc3DQo+ ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IENjOiBrdm0tcHBjQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsga3ZtQHZnZXIua2VybmVs Lm9yZzsNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gYWdyYWZAc3VzZS5kZTsgV29vZA0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBT Y290dC0NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gQjA3NDIxDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBb UEFUQ0ggMi8yXSBrdm06IHBvd2VycGM6IHNldCBjYWNoZSBjb2hlcmVuY3kNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+ Pj4gb25seSBmb3Iga2VybmVsIG1hbmFnZWQgcGFnZXMNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+ Pj4+Pj4gT24gMDcvMTgvMjAxMyAwMzoxMiBQTSwgQmh1c2hhbiBCaGFyYXQtUjY1Nzc3IHdyb3Rl Og0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gLS0tLS1P cmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBGcm9tOiAiIHRpZWp1bi5jaGVu ICIgW21haWx0bzp0aWVqdW4uY2hlbkB3aW5kcml2ZXIuY29tXQ0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IFNl bnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBKdWx5IDE4LCAyMDEzIDExOjU2IEFNDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gVG86 IEJodXNoYW4gQmhhcmF0LVI2NTc3Nw0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IENjOiBrdm0tcHBjQHZnZXIu a2VybmVsLm9yZzsga3ZtQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZzsNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBhZ3JhZkBz dXNlLmRlOyBXb29kDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gU2NvdHQtIEIwNzQyMTsgQmh1c2hhbiBCaGFy YXQtUjY1Nzc3DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtQQVRDSCAyLzJdIGt2bTog cG93ZXJwYzogc2V0IGNhY2hlIGNvaGVyZW5jeQ0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IG9ubHkgZm9yIGtl cm5lbCBtYW5hZ2VkIHBhZ2VzDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBPbiAw Ny8xOC8yMDEzIDAyOjA0IFBNLCBCaGFyYXQgQmh1c2hhbiB3cm90ZToNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+ Pj4gSWYgdGhlcmUgaXMgYSBzdHJ1Y3QgcGFnZSBmb3IgdGhlIHJlcXVlc3RlZCBtYXBwaW5nIHRo ZW4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gaXQncyBub3JtYWwgRERSIGFuZCB0aGUgbWFwcGluZyBzZXRz ICJNIiBiaXQgKGNvaGVyZW50LA0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBjYWNoZWFibGUpIGVsc2UgdGhp cyBpcyB0cmVhdGVkIGFzIEkvTyBhbmQgd2Ugc2V0ICAiSSArDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IEci ICAoY2FjaGUgaW5oaWJpdGVkLA0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBndWFyZGVkKQ0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+ Pj4+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBUaGlzIGhlbHBzIHNldHRpbmcgcHJvcGVyIFRMQiBt YXBwaW5nIGZvciBkaXJlY3QgYXNzaWduZWQNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gZGV2aWNlDQo+ID4+ Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IFNpZ25lZC1vZmYtYnk6IEJoYXJhdCBCaHVz aGFuDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IDxiaGFyYXQuYmh1c2hhbkBmcmVlc2NhbGUuY29tPg0KPiA+ Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiAtLS0NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gICAgYXJjaC9wb3dlcnBjL2t2bS9l NTAwX21tdV9ob3N0LmMgfCAgIDE3ICsrKysrKysrKysrKy0tLS0tDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+ ICAgIDEgZmlsZXMgY2hhbmdlZCwgMTIgaW5zZXJ0aW9ucygrKSwgNSBkZWxldGlvbnMoLSkNCj4g Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL2FyY2gvcG93ZXJw Yy9rdm0vZTUwMF9tbXVfaG9zdC5jDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IGIvYXJjaC9wb3dlcnBjL2t2 bS9lNTAwX21tdV9ob3N0LmMNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gaW5kZXggMWM2YTlkNy4uMDg5YzIy NyAxMDA2NDQNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gLS0tIGEvYXJjaC9wb3dlcnBjL2t2bS9lNTAwX21t dV9ob3N0LmMNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gKysrIGIvYXJjaC9wb3dlcnBjL2t2bS9lNTAwX21t dV9ob3N0LmMNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gQEAgLTY0LDEzICs2NCwyMCBAQCBzdGF0aWMgaW5s aW5lIHUzMg0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBlNTAwX3NoYWRvd19tYXMzX2F0dHJpYih1MzIgbWFz MywgaW50DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gdXNlcm1vZGUpDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+ICAgIAly ZXR1cm4gbWFzMzsNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gICAgfQ0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+ Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiAtc3RhdGljIGlubGluZSB1MzIgZTUwMF9zaGFkb3dfbWFzMl9hdHRyaWIo dTMyIG1hczIsIGludA0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiB1c2VybW9kZSkNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+ Pj4gK3N0YXRpYyBpbmxpbmUgdTMyIGU1MDBfc2hhZG93X21hczJfYXR0cmliKHUzMiBtYXMyLA0K PiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiArcGZuX3QgcGZuKQ0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiAgICB7DQo+ID4+ Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+ICsJdTMyIG1hczJfYXR0cjsNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gKw0KPiA+Pj4+ Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiArCW1hczJfYXR0ciA9IG1hczIgJiBNQVMyX0FUVFJJQl9NQVNLOw0KPiA+Pj4+ Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiArDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+ICsJaWYgKCFwZm5fdmFsaWQocGZuKSkgew0K PiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gV2h5IG5vdCBkaXJlY3RseSB1c2Uga3Zt X2lzX21taW9fcGZuKCk/DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gV2hhdCBJIHVu ZGVyc3RhbmQgZnJvbSB0aGlzIGZ1bmN0aW9uIChzb21lb25lIGNhbiBjb3JyZWN0DQo+ID4+Pj4+ Pj4+Pj4+PiBtZSkgaXMgdGhhdCBpdA0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiByZXR1cm5zICJmYWxzZSIgd2hl biB0aGUgcGFnZSBpcyBtYW5hZ2VkIGJ5IGtlcm5lbCBhbmQgaXMNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gbm90 IG1hcmtlZCBhcyBSRVNFUlZFRCAoZm9yIHNvbWUgcmVhc29uKS4gRm9yIHVzIGl0IGRvZXMgbm90 DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IG1hdHRlciB3aGV0aGVyIHRoZSBwYWdlIGlzIHJlc2VydmVkIG9yIG5v dCwgaWYgaXQgaXMga2VybmVsDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IHZpc2libGUgcGFnZSB0aGVuIGl0DQo+ ID4+Pj4+Pj4+IGlzIEREUi4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+ Pj4+Pj4+IEkgdGhpbmsgeW91IGFyZSBzZXR0aW5nIEl8RyBieSBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIGFsbCBtbWlv IHBhZ2VzLA0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiByaWdodD8gSWYgc28sDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+ Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+ICAgICAgS1ZNOiBkaXJlY3QgbW1pbyBwZm4gY2hlY2sNCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4N Cj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gICAgICBVc2Vyc3BhY2UgbWF5IHNwZWNpZnkgbWVtb3J5IHNsb3RzIHRo YXQgYXJlIGJhY2tlZCBieQ0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBtbWlvIHBhZ2VzIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuDQo+ ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+ICAgICAgbm9ybWFsIFJBTS4gIEluIHNvbWUgY2FzZXMgaXQgaXMgbm90IGVu b3VnaCB0byBpZGVudGlmeQ0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiB0aGVzZSBtbWlvDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBw YWdlcw0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+PiAgICAgIGJ5IHBmbl92YWxpZCgpLiAgVGhpcyBwYXRjaCBhZGRz IGNoZWNraW5nIHRoZSBQYWdlUmVzZXJ2ZWQgYXMNCj4gd2VsbC4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+ Pj4+Pj4+Pj4+IERvIHlvdSBrbm93IHdoYXQgYXJlIHRob3NlICJzb21lIGNhc2VzIiBhbmQgaG93 IGNoZWNraW5nDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gUGFnZVJlc2VydmVkIGhlbHBzIGluDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+ PiB0aG9zZSBjYXNlcz8NCj4gPj4+Pj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4+PiBObywgbXlzZWxmIGRpZG4n dCBzZWUgdGhlc2UgYWN0dWFsIGNhc2VzIGluIHFlbXUsdG9vLiBCdXQgdGhpcw0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+ Pj4gc2hvdWxkIGJlIGNocm9uaWNhbGx5IHBlcnNpc3RlbnQgYXMgSSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIDstKQ0K PiA+Pj4+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4+PiBUaGVuIEkgd2lsbCB3YWl0IHRpbGwgc29tZW9uZSBlZHVj YXRlIG1lIDopDQo+ID4+Pj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+PiBUaGUgcmVhc29uIGlzICwga3ZtX2lzX21t aW9fcGZuKCkgZnVuY3Rpb24gbG9va3MgcHJldHR5IGhlYXZ5IGFuZCBJIGRvDQo+IG5vdCB3YW50 IHRvIGNhbGwgdGhpcyBmb3IgYWxsIHRsYndlIG9wZXJhdGlvbiB1bmxlc3MgaXQgaXMgbmVjZXNz YXJ5Lg0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+IEl0IGNlcnRhaW5seSBkb2VzIG1vcmUgdGhhbiB3ZSBu ZWVkIGFuZCBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBzbG93cyBkb3duIHRoZSBmYXN0DQo+IHBhdGggKFJBTSBtYXBw aW5nKS4gVGhlIG9ubHkgdGhpbmcgaXQgZG9lcyBvbiB0b3Agb2YgImlmIChwZm5fdmFsaWQoKSki IGlzIHRvDQo+IGNoZWNrIGZvciBwYWdlcyB0aGF0IGFyZSBkZWNsYXJlZCByZXNlcnZlZCBvbiB0 aGUgaG9zdC4gVGhpcyBoYXBwZW5zIGluIDIgY2FzZXM6DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4gICAx KSBOb24gY2FjaGUgY29oZXJlbnQgRE1BDQo+ID4+Pj4+PiAgIDIpIE1lbW9yeSBob3QgcmVtb3Zl DQo+ID4+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4gVGhlIG5vbiBjb2hlcmVudCBETUEgY2FzZSB3b3VsZCBiZSBp bnRlcmVzdGluZywgYXMgd2l0aCB0aGUgbWVjaGFuaXNtIGFzDQo+IGl0IGlzIGluIHBsYWNlIGlu IExpbnV4IHRvZGF5LCB3ZSBjb3VsZCBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBicmVhayBub3JtYWwgZ3Vlc3Qgb3Bl cmF0aW9uDQo+IGlmIHdlIGRvbid0IHRha2UgaXQgaW50byBhY2NvdW50LiBIb3dldmVyLCBpdCdz IEtjb25maWcgZ3VhcmRlZCBieToNCj4gPj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+PiAgICAgICAgIGRlcGVuZHMg b24gNHh4IHx8IDh4eCB8fCBFMjAwIHx8IFBQQ19NUEM1MTJ4IHx8IEdBTUVDVUJFX0NPTU1PTg0K PiA+Pj4+Pj4gICAgICAgICBkZWZhdWx0IG4gaWYgUFBDXzQ3eA0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4gICAgICAgICBk ZWZhdWx0IHkNCj4gPj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+PiBzbyB3ZSBuZXZlciBoaXQgaXQgd2l0aCBhbnkg Y29yZSB3ZSBjYXJlIGFib3V0IDspLg0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+IE1lbW9yeSBob3QgcmVt b3ZlIGRvZXMgbm90IGV4aXN0IG9uIGU1MDAgRldJVywgc28gd2UgZG9uJ3QgaGF2ZSB0byB3b3Jy eQ0KPiBhYm91dCB0aGF0IG9uZSBlaXRoZXIuDQo+ID4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+IFRoYW5rcyBmb3Ig dGhpcyBnb29kIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIDopDQo+ID4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+IFNvIHdoeSBub3QgbGlt aXQgdGhvc2UgY29kZXMgd2l0aCBDT05GSUdfTUVNT1JZX0hPVFBMVUcgaW5zaWRlDQo+IGt2bV9p c19tbWlvX3BmbigpIHRvIG1ha2Ugc3VyZSB0aGF0IGNoZWNrIGlzIG9ubHkgdmFsaWQgd2hlbiB0 aGF0IGlzIHJlYWxseQ0KPiBuZWVkZWQ/IFRoaXMgY2FuIGRlY3JlYXNlIHRob3NlIHVubmVjZXNz YXJ5IHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIGxvc3MuDQo+ID4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+IElmIEknbSB3cm9uZyBwbGVh c2UgY29ycmVjdCBtZSA6KQ0KPiA+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4gWW91J3JlIHBlcmZlY3RseSByaWdodCwg YnV0IHRoaXMgaXMgZ2VuZXJpYyBLVk0gY29kZS4gU28gaXQgZ2V0cyBydW4gYWNyb3NzDQo+IGFs bCBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmVzLiBXaGF0IGlmIHNvbWVvbmUgaGFzIHRoZSBncmVhdCBpZGVhIHRvIGFk ZCBhIG5ldyBjYXNlIGhlcmUgZm9yDQo+IHg4NiwgYnV0IGRvZXNuJ3QgdGVsbCB1cz8gSW4gdGhh dCBjYXNlIHdlIHBvdGVudGlhbGx5IGJyZWFrIHg4Ni4NCj4gPj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+IEknZCByYXRo ZXIgbm90IGxpa2UgdG8gYnJlYWsgeDg2IDopLg0KPiA+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4gSG93ZXZlciwgaXQn ZCBiZSB2ZXJ5IGludGVyZXN0aW5nIHRvIHNlZSBhIGJlbmNobWFyayB3aXRoIHRoaXMgY2hhbmdl LiBEbw0KPiB5b3UgdGhpbmsgeW91IGNvdWxkIGp1c3QgcmlwIG91dCB0aGUgd2hvbGUgcmVzZXJ2 ZWQgY2hlY2sgYW5kIHJ1biBhIGZldw0KPiBiZW5jaG1hcmtzIGFuZCBzaG93IHVzIHRoZSByZXN1 bHRzPw0KPiA+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4gT2Z0ZW4gd2hhdCBjYXNlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBhZG9w dGVkIHRvIHZhbGlkYXRlIHRoaXMgc2NlbmFyaW8/DQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+IFNvbWV0aGluZyB3aGlj aCBoYW1tZXJzIHRoZSBUTEIgZW11bGF0aW9uIGhlYXZpbHkuIEkgdXN1YWxseSBqdXN0IHJ1bg0K PiA+PiAvYmluL2VjaG8gYSB0aG91c2FuZCB0aW1lcyBpbiAidGltZSIgYW5kIHNlZSBob3cgbG9u ZyBpdCB0YWtlcyA7KQ0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gSSB0cmllZCB0byBydW4gZml2ZSB0aW1lcyB3 aXRoIHRoaXMgY29tYmluYXRpb24sICJ0aW1lIGBmb3IgKChpPTA7IGk8NTAwMDsNCj4gaSsrKSk7 ICBkbyAvYmluL2VjaG87IGRvbmVgIiwgdG8gY2FsY3VsYXRlIHRoZSBhdmVyYWdlIHZhbHVlIHdp dGggdGhpcyBjaGFuZ2U6DQo+ID4NCj4gPiBkaWZmIC0tZ2l0IGEvdmlydC9rdm0va3ZtX21haW4u YyBiL3ZpcnQva3ZtL2t2bV9tYWluLmMgaW5kZXgNCj4gPiAxNTgwZGQ0Li41ZTg2MzViIDEwMDY0 NA0KPiA+IC0tLSBhL3ZpcnQva3ZtL2t2bV9tYWluLmMNCj4gPiArKysgYi92aXJ0L2t2bS9rdm1f bWFpbi5jDQo+ID4gQEAgLTEwMiw2ICsxMDIsMTAgQEAgc3RhdGljIGJvb2wgbGFyZ2VwYWdlc19l bmFibGVkID0gdHJ1ZTsNCj4gPg0KPiA+IGJvb2wga3ZtX2lzX21taW9fcGZuKHBmbl90IHBmbikN Cj4gPiB7DQo+ID4gKyNpZmRlZiBDT05GSUdfTUVNT1JZX0hPVFBMVUcNCj4gDQo+IEknZCBmZWVs IHNhZmVyIGlmIHdlIG5hcnJvdyB0aGlzIGRvd24gdG8gZTUwMC4NCj4gDQo+ID4gKyAgICAgICAv Kg0KPiA+ICsgICAgICAgICogQ3VycmVudGx5IG9ubHkgaW4gbWVtb3J5IGhvdCByZW1vdmUgY2Fz ZSB3ZSBtYXkgc3RpbGwgbmVlZCB0aGlzLg0KPiA+ICsgICAgICAgICovDQo+ID4gICAgICAgIGlm IChwZm5fdmFsaWQocGZuKSkgew0KPiANCj4gV2Ugc3RpbGwgaGF2ZSB0byBjaGVjayBmb3IgcGZu X3ZhbGlkLCBubz8gU28gdGhlICNpZmRlZiBzaG91bGQgYmUgZG93biBoZXJlLg0KPiANCj4gPiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICBpbnQgcmVzZXJ2ZWQ7DQo+ID4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgc3RydWN0IHBh Z2UgKnRhaWwgPSBwZm5fdG9fcGFnZShwZm4pOyBAQCAtMTI0LDYgKzEyOCw3DQo+ID4gQEAgYm9v bCBrdm1faXNfbW1pb19wZm4ocGZuX3QgcGZuKQ0KPiA+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIH0NCj4gPiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICByZXR1cm4gUGFnZVJlc2VydmVkKHRhaWwpOw0KPiA+ICAgICAgICB9DQo+ ID4gKyNlbmRpZg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gICAgICAgIHJldHVybiB0cnVlOw0KPiA+IH0NCj4gPg0KPiA+ IEJlZm9yZSBhcHBseSB0aGlzIGNoYW5nZToNCj4gPg0KPiA+IHJlYWwgICAgKDFtMTkuOTU0cyAr IDFtMjAuOTE4cyArIDFtMjIuNzQwcyArIDFtMjEuMTQ2cyArIDFtMjIuMTIwcykvNT0NCj4gMW0y MS4zNzZzDQo+ID4gdXNlciAgICAoMG0yMy4xODFzICsgMG0yMy41NTBzICsgMG0yMy41MDZzICsg MG0yMy40MTBzICsgMG0yMy41MjBzKS81PQ0KPiAwbTIzLjQzM3MNCj4gPiBzeXMJKDBtNDkuMDg3 cyArIDBtNDkuNTYzcyArIDBtNTEuNzU4cyArIDBtNTAuMjkwcyArIDBtNTEuMDQ3cykvNT0gMG01 MC4zNDlzDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBBZnRlciBhcHBseSB0aGlzIGNoYW5nZToNCj4gPg0KPiA+IHJlYWwg ICAgKDFtMTkuNTA3cyArIDFtMjAuOTE5cyArIDFtMjEuNDM2cyArIDFtMjEuMTc5cyArIDFtMjAu MjkzcykvNT0NCj4gMW0yMC42NjdzDQo+ID4gdXNlciAgICAoMG0yMi41OTVzICsgMG0yMi43MTlz ICsgMG0yMi40ODRzICsgMG0yMi44MTFzICsgMG0yMi40NjdzKS81PQ0KPiAwbTIyLjYxNXMNCj4g PiBzeXMJKDBtNDguODQxcyArIDBtNDkuOTI5cyArIDBtNTAuMzEwcyArIDBtNDkuODEzcyArIDBt NDguNTg3cykvNT0gMG00OS40OTZzDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBTbywNCj4gPg0KPiA+IHJlYWwgICAgKDFt MjAuNjY3cyAtIDFtMjEuMzc2cykvMW0yMS4zNzZzIHggMTAwJSA9IC0wLjYlDQo+ID4gdXNlciAg ICAoMG0yMi42MTVzIC0gMG0yMy40MzNzKS8wbTIzLjQzM3MgeCAxMDAlID0gLTMuNSUNCj4gPiBz eXMJKDBtNDkuNDk2cyAtIDBtNTAuMzQ5cykvMG01MC4zNDlzIHggMTAwJSA9IC0xLjclDQo+IA0K PiBWZXJ5IG5pY2UsIHNvIHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgcmVhbCB3b3JsZCBwZXJmb3JtYW5jZSBiZW5lZml0 IHRvIGRvaW5nIHRoaXMuIFRoZW4geWVzLA0KPiBJIHRoaW5rIGl0IHdvdWxkIG1ha2Ugc2Vuc2Ug dG8gY2hhbmdlIHRoZSBnbG9iYWwgaGVscGVyIGZ1bmN0aW9uIHRvIGJlIGZhc3Qgb24NCj4gZTUw MCBhbmQgdXNlIHRoYXQgb25lIGZyb20gZTUwMF9zaGFkb3dfbWFzMl9hdHRyaWIoKSBpbnN0ZWFk Lg0KDQpBcmUgbm90IHdlIGdvaW5nIHRvIHVzZSBwYWdlX2lzX3JhbSgpIGZyb20gIGU1MDBfc2hh ZG93X21hczJfYXR0cmliKCkgYXMgU2NvdHQgY29tbWVudGVkPw0KDQotQmhhcmF0DQoNCj4gDQo+ IEdsZWIsIFBhb2xvLCBhbnkgaGFyZCBmZWVsaW5ncz8NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBBbGV4DQo+IA0KDQo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 9:11 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 @ 2013-07-24 9:21 ` Alexander Graf -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini On 24.07.2013, at 11:11, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:55 PM >> To: "“tiejun.chen”" >> Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org list; >> Wood Scott-B07421; Gleb Natapov; Paolo Bonzini >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >> managed pages >> >> >> On 24.07.2013, at 04:26, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >> >>> On 07/18/2013 06:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18.07.2013, at 12:19, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 06:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: '" tiejun.chen "' >>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; >>>>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: " tiejun.chen " [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; >>>>>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency >>>>>>>>>>> only for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of " tiejun.chen " >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; >>>>>>>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency >>>>>>>>>>>>> only for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: " tiejun.chen " [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cacheable) else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> G" (cache inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>> me) is that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel >>>>>>>>>>>>> visible page then it >>>>>>>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, >>>>>>>>>>>>> right? If so, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by >>>>>>>>>>>>> mmio pages rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify >>>>>>>>>>>>> these mmio >>>>>>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as >> well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>>>>>>> those cases? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this >>>>>>>>>>> should be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do >> not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast >> path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to >> check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >>>>>>>> 2) Memory hot remove >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as >> it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation >> if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >>>>>>>> default n if PPC_47x >>>>>>>> default y >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry >> about that one either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for this good information :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside >> kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really >> needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I'm wrong please correct me :) >>>>>> >>>>>> You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across >> all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for >> x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd rather not like to break x86 :). >>>>>> >>>>>> However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do >> you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few >> benchmarks and show us the results? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Often what case should be adopted to validate this scenario? >>>> >>>> Something which hammers the TLB emulation heavily. I usually just run >>>> /bin/echo a thousand times in "time" and see how long it takes ;) >>>> >>> >>> I tried to run five times with this combination, "time `for ((i=0; i<5000; >> i++)); do /bin/echo; done`", to calculate the average value with this change: >>> >>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c index >>> 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 >>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; >>> >>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>> { >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG >> >> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. >> >>> + /* >>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. >>> + */ >>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { >> >> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. >> >>> int reserved; >>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); @@ -124,6 +128,7 >>> @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>> } >>> return PageReserved(tail); >>> } >>> +#endif >>> >>> return true; >>> } >>> >>> Before apply this change: >>> >>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= >> 1m21.376s >>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= >> 0m23.433s >>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s >>> >>> After apply this change: >>> >>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= >> 1m20.667s >>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= >> 0m22.615s >>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s >>> >>> So, >>> >>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% >>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% >>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% >> >> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, >> I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on >> e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. > > Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 9:21 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Gleb Natapov, Paolo Bonzini On 24.07.2013, at 11:11, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@suse.de] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:55 PM >> To: "“tiejun.chen”" >> Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org list; >> Wood Scott-B07421; Gleb Natapov; Paolo Bonzini >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel >> managed pages >> >> >> On 24.07.2013, at 04:26, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >> >>> On 07/18/2013 06:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18.07.2013, at 12:19, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 07/18/2013 06:12 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18.07.2013, at 12:08, “tiejun.chen” wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 05:48 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18.07.2013, at 10:25, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:53 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: '" tiejun.chen "' >>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; >>>>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood Scott- >>>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only >>>>>>>>>> for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: " tiejun.chen " [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:52 PM >>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; >>>>>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency >>>>>>>>>>> only for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 04:08 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of " tiejun.chen " >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:01 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; >>>>>>>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott- >>>>>>>>>>>>> B07421 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency >>>>>>>>>>>>> only for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 03:12 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: " tiejun.chen " [mailto:tiejun.chen@windriver.com] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:56 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agraf@suse.de; Wood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott- B07421; Bhushan Bharat-R65777 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only for kernel managed pages >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cacheable) else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> G" (cache inhibited, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guarded) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return mas3; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usermode) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +pfn_t pfn) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + u32 mas2_attr; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not directly use kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I understand from this function (someone can correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>> me) is that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> returns "false" when the page is managed by kernel and is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not marked as RESERVED (for some reason). For us it does not >>>>>>>>>>>>> matter whether the page is reserved or not, if it is kernel >>>>>>>>>>>>> visible page then it >>>>>>>>>> is DDR. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you are setting I|G by addressing all mmio pages, >>>>>>>>>>>>> right? If so, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> KVM: direct mmio pfn check >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Userspace may specify memory slots that are backed by >>>>>>>>>>>>> mmio pages rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>> normal RAM. In some cases it is not enough to identify >>>>>>>>>>>>> these mmio >>>>>>>>>>> pages >>>>>>>>>>>>> by pfn_valid(). This patch adds checking the PageReserved as >> well. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know what are those "some cases" and how checking >>>>>>>>>>>> PageReserved helps in >>>>>>>>>>> those cases? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, myself didn't see these actual cases in qemu,too. But this >>>>>>>>>>> should be chronically persistent as I understand ;-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then I will wait till someone educate me :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The reason is , kvm_is_mmio_pfn() function looks pretty heavy and I do >> not want to call this for all tlbwe operation unless it is necessary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It certainly does more than we need and potentially slows down the fast >> path (RAM mapping). The only thing it does on top of "if (pfn_valid())" is to >> check for pages that are declared reserved on the host. This happens in 2 cases: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) Non cache coherent DMA >>>>>>>> 2) Memory hot remove >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The non coherent DMA case would be interesting, as with the mechanism as >> it is in place in Linux today, we could potentially break normal guest operation >> if we don't take it into account. However, it's Kconfig guarded by: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> depends on 4xx || 8xx || E200 || PPC_MPC512x || GAMECUBE_COMMON >>>>>>>> default n if PPC_47x >>>>>>>> default y >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so we never hit it with any core we care about ;). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Memory hot remove does not exist on e500 FWIW, so we don't have to worry >> about that one either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for this good information :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So why not limit those codes with CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG inside >> kvm_is_mmio_pfn() to make sure that check is only valid when that is really >> needed? This can decrease those unnecessary performance loss. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I'm wrong please correct me :) >>>>>> >>>>>> You're perfectly right, but this is generic KVM code. So it gets run across >> all architectures. What if someone has the great idea to add a new case here for >> x86, but doesn't tell us? In that case we potentially break x86. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd rather not like to break x86 :). >>>>>> >>>>>> However, it'd be very interesting to see a benchmark with this change. Do >> you think you could just rip out the whole reserved check and run a few >> benchmarks and show us the results? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Often what case should be adopted to validate this scenario? >>>> >>>> Something which hammers the TLB emulation heavily. I usually just run >>>> /bin/echo a thousand times in "time" and see how long it takes ;) >>>> >>> >>> I tried to run five times with this combination, "time `for ((i=0; i<5000; >> i++)); do /bin/echo; done`", to calculate the average value with this change: >>> >>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c index >>> 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 >>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; >>> >>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>> { >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG >> >> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. >> >>> + /* >>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. >>> + */ >>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { >> >> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. >> >>> int reserved; >>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); @@ -124,6 +128,7 >>> @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>> } >>> return PageReserved(tail); >>> } >>> +#endif >>> >>> return true; >>> } >>> >>> Before apply this change: >>> >>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5>> 1m21.376s >>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5>> 0m23.433s >>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s >>> >>> After apply this change: >>> >>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5>> 1m20.667s >>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5>> 0m22.615s >>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s >>> >>> So, >>> >>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% >>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% >>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% >> >> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, >> I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on >> e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. > > Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 9:21 ` Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 9:35 ` Gleb Natapov -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-24 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, "“tiejun.chen”", kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? > > rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > > Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn map that allow us to check quickly for valid pfn. -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 9:35 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-24 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, "“tiejun.chen”", kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? > > rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > > Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn map that allow us to check quickly for valid pfn. -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 9:35 ` Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-24 9:39 ` Alexander Graf -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, "“tiejun.chen”", kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? >> >> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >> >> > Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn map that allow > us to check quickly for valid pfn. Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what the rest of the kvm code is doing. Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 9:39 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777, "“tiejun.chen”", kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? >> >> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >> >> > Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn map that allow > us to check quickly for valid pfn. Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what the rest of the kvm code is doing. Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 9:39 ` Alexander Graf (?) @ 2013-07-24 20:32 ` Scott Wood -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-07-24 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: Gleb Natapov, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, “tiejun.chen”, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from > e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? > >> > >> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >> > >> > > Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn map > that allow > > us to check quickly for valid pfn. > > Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) > > I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what the > rest of the kvm code is doing. I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code is this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or in generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always makes the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are there two different names for the same thing? -Scott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 20:32 ` Scott Wood 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-07-24 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: Gleb Natapov, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, “tiejun.chen”, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from > e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? > >> > >> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >> > >> > > Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn map > that allow > > us to check quickly for valid pfn. > > Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) > > I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what the > rest of the kvm code is doing. I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code is this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or in generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always makes the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are there two different names for the same thing? -Scott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 20:32 ` Scott Wood 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-07-24 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: Wood Scott-B07421, Gleb Natapov, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, kvm-ppc, “tiejun.chen”, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >=20 > On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: >=20 > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from =20 > e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? > >> > >> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >> > >> > > Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn map =20 > that allow > > us to check quickly for valid pfn. >=20 > Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) >=20 > I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what the =20 > rest of the kvm code is doing. I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code is =20 this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or in =20 generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what =20 attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always makes =20 the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be =20 equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are there =20 two different names for the same thing? -Scott= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 20:32 ` Scott Wood (?) @ 2013-07-25 8:50 ` Gleb Natapov -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-25 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Scott Wood Cc: Alexander Graf, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, “tiejun.chen”, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > >On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from > >e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? > >>> > >>> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >>> > >>> > >> Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn > >map that allow > >> us to check quickly for valid pfn. > > > >Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) > > > >I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what > >the rest of the kvm code is doing. > > I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code > is this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or > in generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? It may be not page_is_ram() directly, but the same into page_is_ram() is using. On power both page_is_ram() and do_init_bootmem() walks some kind of memblock_region data structure. What important is that pfn_valid() does not mean that there is a memory behind page structure. See Andrea's reply. > > On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what > attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always > makes the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be > equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. > Again pfn_valid() is not enough. > If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are > there two different names for the same thing? > They are not the same thing. page_is_ram() tells you if phys address is ram backed. pfn_valid() tells you if there is struct page behind the pfn. PageReserved() tells if you a pfn is marked as reserved. All non ram pfns should be reserved, but ram pfns can be reserved too. Again, see Andrea's reply. Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at the function it does it only as a fallback if ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() is not provided. Making access to MMIO noncached as a safe fallback makes sense. It is also make sense to allow noncached access to reserved ram sometimes. -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-25 8:50 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-25 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Scott Wood Cc: Alexander Graf, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, “tiejun.chen”, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > >On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from > >e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? > >>> > >>> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >>> > >>> > >> Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn > >map that allow > >> us to check quickly for valid pfn. > > > >Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) > > > >I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what > >the rest of the kvm code is doing. > > I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code > is this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or > in generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? It may be not page_is_ram() directly, but the same into page_is_ram() is using. On power both page_is_ram() and do_init_bootmem() walks some kind of memblock_region data structure. What important is that pfn_valid() does not mean that there is a memory behind page structure. See Andrea's reply. > > On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what > attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always > makes the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be > equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. > Again pfn_valid() is not enough. > If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are > there two different names for the same thing? > They are not the same thing. page_is_ram() tells you if phys address is ram backed. pfn_valid() tells you if there is struct page behind the pfn. PageReserved() tells if you a pfn is marked as reserved. All non ram pfns should be reserved, but ram pfns can be reserved too. Again, see Andrea's reply. Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at the function it does it only as a fallback if ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() is not provided. Making access to MMIO noncached as a safe fallback makes sense. It is also make sense to allow noncached access to reserved ram sometimes. -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-25 8:50 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-25 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Scott Wood Cc: Wood Scott-B07421, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Alexander Graf, kvm-ppc, “tiejun.chen”, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > >On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from > >e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? > >>> > >>> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >>> > >>> > >> Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn > >map that allow > >> us to check quickly for valid pfn. > > > >Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) > > > >I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what > >the rest of the kvm code is doing. > > I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code > is this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or > in generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? It may be not page_is_ram() directly, but the same into page_is_ram() is using. On power both page_is_ram() and do_init_bootmem() walks some kind of memblock_region data structure. What important is that pfn_valid() does not mean that there is a memory behind page structure. See Andrea's reply. > > On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what > attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always > makes the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be > equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. > Again pfn_valid() is not enough. > If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are > there two different names for the same thing? > They are not the same thing. page_is_ram() tells you if phys address is ram backed. pfn_valid() tells you if there is struct page behind the pfn. PageReserved() tells if you a pfn is marked as reserved. All non ram pfns should be reserved, but ram pfns can be reserved too. Again, see Andrea's reply. Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at the function it does it only as a fallback if ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() is not provided. Making access to MMIO noncached as a safe fallback makes sense. It is also make sense to allow noncached access to reserved ram sometimes. -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-25 8:50 ` Gleb Natapov (?) @ 2013-07-25 16:07 ` Alexander Graf -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-25 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Scott Wood, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, "“tiejun.chen” Chen", kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev, Benjamin Herrenschmidt On 25.07.2013, at 10:50, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from >>> e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? >>>>> >>>>> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn >>> map that allow >>>> us to check quickly for valid pfn. >>> >>> Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) >>> >>> I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what >>> the rest of the kvm code is doing. >> >> I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code >> is this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or >> in generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? > It may be not page_is_ram() directly, but the same into page_is_ram() is > using. On power both page_is_ram() and do_init_bootmem() walks some kind > of memblock_region data structure. What important is that pfn_valid() > does not mean that there is a memory behind page structure. See Andrea's > reply. > >> >> On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what >> attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always >> makes the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be >> equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. >> > Again pfn_valid() is not enough. > >> If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are >> there two different names for the same thing? >> > They are not the same thing. page_is_ram() tells you if phys address is > ram backed. pfn_valid() tells you if there is struct page behind the > pfn. PageReserved() tells if you a pfn is marked as reserved. All non > ram pfns should be reserved, but ram pfns can be reserved too. Again, > see Andrea's reply. > > Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at That one's easy. Let's just ask Ben. Ben, is there any particular reason PPC uses page_is_ram() rather than what KVM does here to figure out whether a pfn is RAM or not? It would be really useful to be able to run the exact same logic that figures out whether we're cacheable or not in both TLB writers (KVM and linux-mm). Alex > the function it does it only as a fallback if > ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() is not provided. Making access to MMIO > noncached as a safe fallback makes sense. It is also make sense to allow > noncached access to reserved ram sometimes. > > -- > Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-25 16:07 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-25 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Scott Wood, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, "“tiejun.chen” Chen", kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev, Benjamin Herrenschmidt On 25.07.2013, at 10:50, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from >>> e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? >>>>> >>>>> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn >>> map that allow >>>> us to check quickly for valid pfn. >>> >>> Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) >>> >>> I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what >>> the rest of the kvm code is doing. >> >> I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code >> is this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or >> in generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? > It may be not page_is_ram() directly, but the same into page_is_ram() is > using. On power both page_is_ram() and do_init_bootmem() walks some kind > of memblock_region data structure. What important is that pfn_valid() > does not mean that there is a memory behind page structure. See Andrea's > reply. > >> >> On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what >> attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always >> makes the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be >> equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. >> > Again pfn_valid() is not enough. > >> If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are >> there two different names for the same thing? >> > They are not the same thing. page_is_ram() tells you if phys address is > ram backed. pfn_valid() tells you if there is struct page behind the > pfn. PageReserved() tells if you a pfn is marked as reserved. All non > ram pfns should be reserved, but ram pfns can be reserved too. Again, > see Andrea's reply. > > Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at That one's easy. Let's just ask Ben. Ben, is there any particular reason PPC uses page_is_ram() rather than what KVM does here to figure out whether a pfn is RAM or not? It would be really useful to be able to run the exact same logic that figures out whether we're cacheable or not in both TLB writers (KVM and linux-mm). Alex > the function it does it only as a fallback if > ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() is not provided. Making access to MMIO > noncached as a safe fallback makes sense. It is also make sense to allow > noncached access to reserved ram sometimes. > > -- > Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-25 16:07 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-25 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Wood Scott-B07421, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, kvm-ppc, "“tiejun.chen” Chen", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, Scott Wood, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev On 25.07.2013, at 10:50, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>=20 >>> On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from >>> e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? >>>>>=20 >>>>> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>> Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn >>> map that allow >>>> us to check quickly for valid pfn. >>>=20 >>> Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) >>>=20 >>> I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what >>> the rest of the kvm code is doing. >>=20 >> I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code >> is this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or >> in generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? > It may be not page_is_ram() directly, but the same into page_is_ram() = is > using. On power both page_is_ram() and do_init_bootmem() walks some = kind > of memblock_region data structure. What important is that pfn_valid() > does not mean that there is a memory behind page structure. See = Andrea's > reply. >=20 >>=20 >> On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what >> attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always >> makes the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be >> equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. >>=20 > Again pfn_valid() is not enough. >=20 >> If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are >> there two different names for the same thing? >>=20 > They are not the same thing. page_is_ram() tells you if phys address = is > ram backed. pfn_valid() tells you if there is struct page behind the > pfn. PageReserved() tells if you a pfn is marked as reserved. All non > ram pfns should be reserved, but ram pfns can be reserved too. Again, > see Andrea's reply. >=20 > Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at That one's easy. Let's just ask Ben. Ben, is there any particular reason = PPC uses page_is_ram() rather than what KVM does here to figure out = whether a pfn is RAM or not? It would be really useful to be able to run = the exact same logic that figures out whether we're cacheable or not in = both TLB writers (KVM and linux-mm). Alex > the function it does it only as a fallback if > ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() is not provided. Making access to MMIO > noncached as a safe fallback makes sense. It is also make sense to = allow > noncached access to reserved ram sometimes. >=20 > -- > Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-25 16:07 ` Alexander Graf (?) @ 2013-07-25 16:14 ` Gleb Natapov -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-25 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: Scott Wood, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, "“tiejun.chen” Chen", kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev, Benjamin Herrenschmidt On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 06:07:55PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 25.07.2013, at 10:50, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>> > >>> On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>>>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from > >>> e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? > >>>>> > >>>>> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn > >>> map that allow > >>>> us to check quickly for valid pfn. > >>> > >>> Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) > >>> > >>> I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what > >>> the rest of the kvm code is doing. > >> > >> I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code > >> is this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or > >> in generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? > > It may be not page_is_ram() directly, but the same into page_is_ram() is > > using. On power both page_is_ram() and do_init_bootmem() walks some kind > > of memblock_region data structure. What important is that pfn_valid() > > does not mean that there is a memory behind page structure. See Andrea's > > reply. > > > >> > >> On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what > >> attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always > >> makes the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be > >> equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. > >> > > Again pfn_valid() is not enough. > > > >> If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are > >> there two different names for the same thing? > >> > > They are not the same thing. page_is_ram() tells you if phys address is > > ram backed. pfn_valid() tells you if there is struct page behind the > > pfn. PageReserved() tells if you a pfn is marked as reserved. All non > > ram pfns should be reserved, but ram pfns can be reserved too. Again, > > see Andrea's reply. > > > > Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at > > That one's easy. Let's just ask Ben. Ben, is there any particular reason PPC uses page_is_ram() rather than what KVM does here to figure out whether a pfn is RAM or not? It would be really useful to be able to run the exact same logic that figures out whether we're cacheable or not in both TLB writers (KVM and linux-mm). > KVM does not only try to figure out what is RAM or not! Look at how KVM uses the function. KVM tries to figure out if refcounting needed to be used on this page among other things. -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-25 16:14 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-25 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: Scott Wood, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, "“tiejun.chen” Chen", kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev, Benjamin Herrenschmidt On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 06:07:55PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 25.07.2013, at 10:50, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>> > >>> On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>>>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from > >>> e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? > >>>>> > >>>>> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn > >>> map that allow > >>>> us to check quickly for valid pfn. > >>> > >>> Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) > >>> > >>> I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what > >>> the rest of the kvm code is doing. > >> > >> I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code > >> is this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or > >> in generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? > > It may be not page_is_ram() directly, but the same into page_is_ram() is > > using. On power both page_is_ram() and do_init_bootmem() walks some kind > > of memblock_region data structure. What important is that pfn_valid() > > does not mean that there is a memory behind page structure. See Andrea's > > reply. > > > >> > >> On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what > >> attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always > >> makes the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be > >> equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. > >> > > Again pfn_valid() is not enough. > > > >> If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are > >> there two different names for the same thing? > >> > > They are not the same thing. page_is_ram() tells you if phys address is > > ram backed. pfn_valid() tells you if there is struct page behind the > > pfn. PageReserved() tells if you a pfn is marked as reserved. All non > > ram pfns should be reserved, but ram pfns can be reserved too. Again, > > see Andrea's reply. > > > > Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at > > That one's easy. Let's just ask Ben. Ben, is there any particular reason PPC uses page_is_ram() rather than what KVM does here to figure out whether a pfn is RAM or not? It would be really useful to be able to run the exact same logic that figures out whether we're cacheable or not in both TLB writers (KVM and linux-mm). > KVM does not only try to figure out what is RAM or not! Look at how KVM uses the function. KVM tries to figure out if refcounting needed to be used on this page among other things. -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-25 16:14 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-25 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: Wood Scott-B07421, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, kvm-ppc, "“tiejun.chen” Chen", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, Scott Wood, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 06:07:55PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 25.07.2013, at 10:50, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 07/24/2013 04:39:59 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>> > >>> On 24.07.2013, at 11:35, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:21:11AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>>>> Are not we going to use page_is_ram() from > >>> e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() as Scott commented? > >>>>> > >>>>> rWhy aren't we using page_is_ram() in kvm_is_mmio_pfn()? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Because it is much slower and, IIRC, actually used to build pfn > >>> map that allow > >>>> us to check quickly for valid pfn. > >>> > >>> Then why should we use page_is_ram()? :) > >>> > >>> I really don't want the e500 code to diverge too much from what > >>> the rest of the kvm code is doing. > >> > >> I don't understand "actually used to build pfn map...". What code > >> is this? I don't see any calls to page_is_ram() in the KVM code, or > >> in generic mm code. Is this a statement about what x86 does? > > It may be not page_is_ram() directly, but the same into page_is_ram() is > > using. On power both page_is_ram() and do_init_bootmem() walks some kind > > of memblock_region data structure. What important is that pfn_valid() > > does not mean that there is a memory behind page structure. See Andrea's > > reply. > > > >> > >> On PPC page_is_ram() is only called (AFAICT) for determining what > >> attributes to set on mmaps. We want to be sure that KVM always > >> makes the same decision. While pfn_valid() seems like it should be > >> equivalent, it's not obvious from the PPC code that it is. > >> > > Again pfn_valid() is not enough. > > > >> If pfn_valid() is better, why is that not used for mmap? Why are > >> there two different names for the same thing? > >> > > They are not the same thing. page_is_ram() tells you if phys address is > > ram backed. pfn_valid() tells you if there is struct page behind the > > pfn. PageReserved() tells if you a pfn is marked as reserved. All non > > ram pfns should be reserved, but ram pfns can be reserved too. Again, > > see Andrea's reply. > > > > Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at > > That one's easy. Let's just ask Ben. Ben, is there any particular reason PPC uses page_is_ram() rather than what KVM does here to figure out whether a pfn is RAM or not? It would be really useful to be able to run the exact same logic that figures out whether we're cacheable or not in both TLB writers (KVM and linux-mm). > KVM does not only try to figure out what is RAM or not! Look at how KVM uses the function. KVM tries to figure out if refcounting needed to be used on this page among other things. -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-25 8:50 ` Gleb Natapov (?) @ 2013-07-26 22:27 ` Scott Wood -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-07-26 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Alexander Graf, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, “tiejun.chen”, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev On 07/25/2013 03:50:42 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at > the function it does it only as a fallback if > ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() is not provided. Making access to MMIO > noncached as a safe fallback makes sense. There's only one current implementation of ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot(), which is pci_phys_mem_access_prot(), which also uses page_is_ram(). If page_is_ram() returns false then it checks for write-combining PCI. But yes, we would want to call ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() if present. Copying from the host PTE would be ideal if doesn't come with a noticeable performance impact compared to other methods, but one way or another we want to be sure we match. > It is also make sense to allow noncached access to reserved ram > sometimes. Perhaps, but that's not KVM's decision to make. You should get the same result as if you mmaped it -- because QEMU already did and we need to be consistent. Not to mention the large page kernel mapping that will have been done on e500... -Scott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-26 22:27 ` Scott Wood 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-07-26 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Alexander Graf, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, “tiejun.chen”, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev On 07/25/2013 03:50:42 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at > the function it does it only as a fallback if > ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() is not provided. Making access to MMIO > noncached as a safe fallback makes sense. There's only one current implementation of ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot(), which is pci_phys_mem_access_prot(), which also uses page_is_ram(). If page_is_ram() returns false then it checks for write-combining PCI. But yes, we would want to call ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() if present. Copying from the host PTE would be ideal if doesn't come with a noticeable performance impact compared to other methods, but one way or another we want to be sure we match. > It is also make sense to allow noncached access to reserved ram > sometimes. Perhaps, but that's not KVM's decision to make. You should get the same result as if you mmaped it -- because QEMU already did and we need to be consistent. Not to mention the large page kernel mapping that will have been done on e500... -Scott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-26 22:27 ` Scott Wood 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Scott Wood @ 2013-07-26 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Wood Scott-B07421, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Alexander Graf, kvm-ppc, “tiejun.chen”, Bhushan Bharat-R65777, Paolo Bonzini, linuxppc-dev On 07/25/2013 03:50:42 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > Why ppc uses page_is_ram() for mmap? How should I know? But looking at > the function it does it only as a fallback if > ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() is not provided. Making access to MMIO > noncached as a safe fallback makes sense. There's only one current implementation of =20 ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot(), which is pci_phys_mem_access_prot(), =20 which also uses page_is_ram(). If page_is_ram() returns false then it =20 checks for write-combining PCI. But yes, we would want to call =20 ppc_md.phys_mem_access_prot() if present. Copying from the host PTE would be ideal if doesn't come with a =20 noticeable performance impact compared to other methods, but one way or =20 another we want to be sure we match. > It is also make sense to allow noncached access to reserved ram =20 > sometimes. Perhaps, but that's not KVM's decision to make. You should get the =20 same result as if you mmaped it -- because QEMU already did and we need =20 to be consistent. Not to mention the large page kernel mapping that =20 will have been done on e500... -Scott= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 8:25 ` Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 10:01 ` Gleb Natapov -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-24 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, Andrea Arcangeli Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 > > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; > > > > bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > > { > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > > I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. > > > + /* > > + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. > > + */ > > if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { > > We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. > > > int reserved; > > struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); > > @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > > } > > return PageReserved(tail); > > } > > +#endif > > > > return true; > > } > > > > Before apply this change: > > > > real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s > > user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s > > sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s > > > > After apply this change: > > > > real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s > > user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s > > sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s > > > > So, > > > > real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% > > user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% > > sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% > > Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. > > Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? > I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 10:01 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-24 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, Andrea Arcangeli Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 > > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; > > > > bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > > { > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > > I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. > > > + /* > > + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. > > + */ > > if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { > > We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. > > > int reserved; > > struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); > > @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > > } > > return PageReserved(tail); > > } > > +#endif > > > > return true; > > } > > > > Before apply this change: > > > > real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s > > user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s > > sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s > > > > After apply this change: > > > > real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s > > user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s > > sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s > > > > So, > > > > real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% > > user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% > > sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% > > Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. > > Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? > I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 10:01 ` Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-24 10:09 ` Alexander Graf -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, Andrea Arcangeli On 24.07.2013, at 12:01, Gleb Natapov wrote: > Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>> index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 >>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; >>> >>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>> { >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG >> >> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. >> >>> + /* >>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. >>> + */ >>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { >> >> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. >> >>> int reserved; >>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); >>> @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>> } >>> return PageReserved(tail); >>> } >>> +#endif >>> >>> return true; >>> } >>> >>> Before apply this change: >>> >>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s >>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s >>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s >>> >>> After apply this change: >>> >>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s >>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s >>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s >>> >>> So, >>> >>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% >>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% >>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% >> >> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. >> >> Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? >> > I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get > away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can > be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). But we don't check for sparseness today in here either. We merely check for incomplete huge pages. Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 10:09 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, Andrea Arcangeli On 24.07.2013, at 12:01, Gleb Natapov wrote: > Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>> index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 >>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; >>> >>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>> { >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG >> >> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. >> >>> + /* >>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. >>> + */ >>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { >> >> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. >> >>> int reserved; >>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); >>> @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>> } >>> return PageReserved(tail); >>> } >>> +#endif >>> >>> return true; >>> } >>> >>> Before apply this change: >>> >>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s >>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s >>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s >>> >>> After apply this change: >>> >>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s >>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s >>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s >>> >>> So, >>> >>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% >>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% >>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% >> >> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. >> >> Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? >> > I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get > away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can > be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). But we don't check for sparseness today in here either. We merely check for incomplete huge pages. Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 10:09 ` Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 10:19 ` Gleb Natapov -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-24 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, Andrea Arcangeli On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:09:42PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 24.07.2013, at 12:01, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>> index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 > >>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; > >>> > >>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > >>> { > >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > >> > >> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. > >> > >>> + /* > >>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. > >>> + */ > >>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { > >> > >> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. > >> > >>> int reserved; > >>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); > >>> @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > >>> } > >>> return PageReserved(tail); > >>> } > >>> +#endif > >>> > >>> return true; > >>> } > >>> > >>> Before apply this change: > >>> > >>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s > >>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s > >>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s > >>> > >>> After apply this change: > >>> > >>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s > >>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s > >>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s > >>> > >>> So, > >>> > >>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% > >>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% > >>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% > >> > >> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. > >> > >> Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? > >> > > I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get > > away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can > > be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). > > But we don't check for sparseness today in here either. We merely check for incomplete huge pages. > That's not how I read the code. The code checks for reserved flag set. It should be set on pfns that point to memory holes. As far as I understand huge page tricks they are there to guaranty that THP does not change flags under us, Andrea? -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 10:19 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-24 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, Andrea Arcangeli On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:09:42PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 24.07.2013, at 12:01, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>> index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 > >>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; > >>> > >>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > >>> { > >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > >> > >> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. > >> > >>> + /* > >>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. > >>> + */ > >>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { > >> > >> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. > >> > >>> int reserved; > >>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); > >>> @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > >>> } > >>> return PageReserved(tail); > >>> } > >>> +#endif > >>> > >>> return true; > >>> } > >>> > >>> Before apply this change: > >>> > >>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s > >>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s > >>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s > >>> > >>> After apply this change: > >>> > >>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s > >>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s > >>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s > >>> > >>> So, > >>> > >>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% > >>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% > >>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% > >> > >> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. > >> > >> Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? > >> > > I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get > > away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can > > be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). > > But we don't check for sparseness today in here either. We merely check for incomplete huge pages. > That's not how I read the code. The code checks for reserved flag set. It should be set on pfns that point to memory holes. As far as I understand huge page tricks they are there to guaranty that THP does not change flags under us, Andrea? -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 10:19 ` Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-24 10:25 ` Alexander Graf -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, Andrea Arcangeli On 24.07.2013, at 12:19, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:09:42PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 24.07.2013, at 12:01, Gleb Natapov wrote: >> >>> Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>>>> index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 >>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>>>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; >>>>> >>>>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>>>> { >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG >>>> >>>> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. >>>> >>>>> + /* >>>>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. >>>>> + */ >>>>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>> >>>> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. >>>> >>>>> int reserved; >>>>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); >>>>> @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>>>> } >>>>> return PageReserved(tail); >>>>> } >>>>> +#endif >>>>> >>>>> return true; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Before apply this change: >>>>> >>>>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s >>>>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s >>>>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s >>>>> >>>>> After apply this change: >>>>> >>>>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s >>>>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s >>>>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s >>>>> >>>>> So, >>>>> >>>>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% >>>>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% >>>>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% >>>> >>>> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. >>>> >>>> Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? >>>> >>> I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get >>> away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can >>> be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). >> >> But we don't check for sparseness today in here either. We merely check for incomplete huge pages. >> > That's not how I read the code. The code checks for reserved flag set. > It should be set on pfns that point to memory holes. As far as I I couldn't find any traces of code that sets the reserved bits on e500 chips though. I've only seen it getting set for memory hotplug and memory incoherent DMA code which doesn't get used on e500. But I'd be more than happy to get proven wrong :). Alex > understand huge page tricks they are there to guaranty that THP does not > change flags under us, Andrea? > > -- > Gleb. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 10:25 ` Alexander Graf 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, Andrea Arcangeli On 24.07.2013, at 12:19, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:09:42PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 24.07.2013, at 12:01, Gleb Natapov wrote: >> >>> Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>>>> index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 >>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c >>>>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; >>>>> >>>>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>>>> { >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG >>>> >>>> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. >>>> >>>>> + /* >>>>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. >>>>> + */ >>>>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { >>>> >>>> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. >>>> >>>>> int reserved; >>>>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); >>>>> @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) >>>>> } >>>>> return PageReserved(tail); >>>>> } >>>>> +#endif >>>>> >>>>> return true; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Before apply this change: >>>>> >>>>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s >>>>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s >>>>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s >>>>> >>>>> After apply this change: >>>>> >>>>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s >>>>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s >>>>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s >>>>> >>>>> So, >>>>> >>>>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% >>>>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% >>>>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% >>>> >>>> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. >>>> >>>> Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? >>>> >>> I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get >>> away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can >>> be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). >> >> But we don't check for sparseness today in here either. We merely check for incomplete huge pages. >> > That's not how I read the code. The code checks for reserved flag set. > It should be set on pfns that point to memory holes. As far as I I couldn't find any traces of code that sets the reserved bits on e500 chips though. I've only seen it getting set for memory hotplug and memory incoherent DMA code which doesn't get used on e500. But I'd be more than happy to get proven wrong :). Alex > understand huge page tricks they are there to guaranty that THP does not > change flags under us, Andrea? > > -- > Gleb. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 10:25 ` Alexander Graf @ 2013-07-24 10:30 ` Gleb Natapov -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-24 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, Andrea Arcangeli On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:25:18PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 24.07.2013, at 12:19, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:09:42PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> > >> On 24.07.2013, at 12:01, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> > >>> Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>>>> index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 > >>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>>>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; > >>>>> > >>>>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > >>>>> { > >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > >>>> > >>>> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. > >>>> > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { > >>>> > >>>> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. > >>>> > >>>>> int reserved; > >>>>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); > >>>>> @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > >>>>> } > >>>>> return PageReserved(tail); > >>>>> } > >>>>> +#endif > >>>>> > >>>>> return true; > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> Before apply this change: > >>>>> > >>>>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s > >>>>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s > >>>>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s > >>>>> > >>>>> After apply this change: > >>>>> > >>>>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s > >>>>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s > >>>>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s > >>>>> > >>>>> So, > >>>>> > >>>>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% > >>>>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% > >>>>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% > >>>> > >>>> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. > >>>> > >>>> Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? > >>>> > >>> I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get > >>> away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can > >>> be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). > >> > >> But we don't check for sparseness today in here either. We merely check for incomplete huge pages. > >> > > That's not how I read the code. The code checks for reserved flag set. > > It should be set on pfns that point to memory holes. As far as I > > I couldn't find any traces of code that sets the reserved bits on e500 chips though. I've only seen it getting set for memory hotplug and memory incoherent DMA code which doesn't get used on e500. > > But I'd be more than happy to get proven wrong :). > Can you write a module that scans all page structures? AFAIK all pages are marked as reserved and then those that become regular memory are marked as unreserved. Hope Andrea will chime in here :) -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-24 10:30 ` Gleb Natapov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-24 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Graf Cc: "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini, Andrea Arcangeli On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:25:18PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 24.07.2013, at 12:19, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:09:42PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> > >> On 24.07.2013, at 12:01, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> > >>> Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>>>> index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 > >>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > >>>>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; > >>>>> > >>>>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > >>>>> { > >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > >>>> > >>>> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. > >>>> > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { > >>>> > >>>> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. > >>>> > >>>>> int reserved; > >>>>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); > >>>>> @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > >>>>> } > >>>>> return PageReserved(tail); > >>>>> } > >>>>> +#endif > >>>>> > >>>>> return true; > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> Before apply this change: > >>>>> > >>>>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s > >>>>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s > >>>>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s > >>>>> > >>>>> After apply this change: > >>>>> > >>>>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s > >>>>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s > >>>>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s > >>>>> > >>>>> So, > >>>>> > >>>>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% > >>>>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% > >>>>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% > >>>> > >>>> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. > >>>> > >>>> Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? > >>>> > >>> I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get > >>> away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can > >>> be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). > >> > >> But we don't check for sparseness today in here either. We merely check for incomplete huge pages. > >> > > That's not how I read the code. The code checks for reserved flag set. > > It should be set on pfns that point to memory holes. As far as I > > I couldn't find any traces of code that sets the reserved bits on e500 chips though. I've only seen it getting set for memory hotplug and memory incoherent DMA code which doesn't get used on e500. > > But I'd be more than happy to get proven wrong :). > Can you write a module that scans all page structures? AFAIK all pages are marked as reserved and then those that become regular memory are marked as unreserved. Hope Andrea will chime in here :) -- Gleb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-24 10:30 ` Gleb Natapov @ 2013-07-25 1:04 ` Andrea Arcangeli -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Andrea Arcangeli @ 2013-07-25 1:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Alexander Graf, "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini Hi! On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 01:30:12PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:25:18PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > > On 24.07.2013, at 12:19, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:09:42PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > >> > > >> On 24.07.2013, at 12:01, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > >> > > >>> Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > >>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > >>>>> index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 > > >>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > >>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > >>>>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; > > >>>>> > > >>>>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > > >>>>> { > > >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > > >>>> > > >>>> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. > > >>>> > > >>>>> + /* > > >>>>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. > > >>>>> + */ > > >>>>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { > > >>>> > > >>>> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. > > >>>> > > >>>>> int reserved; > > >>>>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); > > >>>>> @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > > >>>>> } > > >>>>> return PageReserved(tail); > > >>>>> } > > >>>>> +#endif > > >>>>> > > >>>>> return true; > > >>>>> } > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Before apply this change: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s > > >>>>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s > > >>>>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s > > >>>>> > > >>>>> After apply this change: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s > > >>>>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s > > >>>>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% > > >>>>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% > > >>>>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% > > >>>> > > >>>> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. > > >>>> > > >>>> Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? > > >>>> > > >>> I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get > > >>> away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can > > >>> be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). > > >> > > >> But we don't check for sparseness today in here either. We merely check for incomplete huge pages. > > >> > > > That's not how I read the code. The code checks for reserved flag set. > > > It should be set on pfns that point to memory holes. As far as I > > > > I couldn't find any traces of code that sets the reserved bits on e500 chips though. I've only seen it getting set for memory hotplug and memory incoherent DMA code which doesn't get used on e500. > > > > But I'd be more than happy to get proven wrong :). > > > Can you write a module that scans all page structures? AFAIK all pages > are marked as reserved and then those that become regular memory are > marked as unreserved. Hope Andrea will chime in here :) So the situation with regard to non-RAM and PageReserved/pfn_valid is quite simple. "struct page" exists for non-RAM too as "struct page" must exist up to at least 2^MAX_ORDER pfn alignment or things breaks, like the first pfn must be 2^MXA_ORDER aligned or again things break in the buddy. We don't make an effort to save a few "struct page" to keep it simpler. But those non-RAM pages (or tiny non-RAM page holes if any) are marked PageReserved. If "struct page" doesn't exist pfn_valid returns false. So you cannot get away skipping pfn_valid and at least one PageReserved. However it gets more complex than just ram vs non-RAM, because there are pages that are real RAM (not left marked PageReserved at boot after checking e820 or equivalent bios data for non-x86 archs) but that are taken over by drivers, than then could use it as mmio regions snooping the writes and mapping them in userland too as hugepages maybe. That is the motivation for the THP related code in kvm_is_mmio_pfn. Those vmas have VM_PFNMAP set so vm_normal_page is zero and the refcounting is skipped like if it's non-RAM and they're mapped with remap_pfn_range (different mechanism for VM_MIXEDMAP that does the refcounting and doesn't require in turn the driver to mark the page PageReserved). The above explains why KVM needs to skip the refcounting on PageReserved == true && pfn_valid() == true, and it must skip the refcounting for pfn_valid == false without trying to call pfn_to_page (or it'll crash). Now the code doing the THP check with smp_rmb is very safe, possibly too safe. Looking at it now, it looks a minor overengineering oversight. The slight oversight is that split_huge_page cannot transfer the PG_reserved bit from head to tail. So there's no real risk that the driver allocates an hugepage, marks the head reserved (the PG_ bits of a THP page are only relevant in the head), maps the page with some new version of remap_pfn_range_huge (not possible right now, PFNMAP|MIXEDMAP only can handle 4k mappings right now) and then split_huge_page runs and we miss the reserved bit on the tail page. Because the reserved bit wouldn't be transferred to the tail page anyway by split_huge_page so we'd miss it anyway if anything like that would happen. Besides split_huge_page couldn't run on a device owned page as it's not anonymous but device-owned and there's no way to map it with a hugepmd too. So in short, it's probably never going to help to have such a check there. We can probably optimize away the THP code in there. No matter how the driver maps this hypotetic new type of reserved hugepage in userland, it should never allow split_huge_page to run on it, and then it should take care of marking all subpages as reserved too. And KVM won't need to worry about a driver setting reserved only on a head page anymore. Untested RFC patch follows. == >From 76927680df7034a575bed5da754f7ebe94481fb3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:56:08 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] kvm: optimize away THP checks in kvm_is_mmio_pfn() The checks on PG_reserved in the page structure on head and tail pages aren't necessary because split_huge_page wouldn't transfer the PG_reserved bit from head to tail anyway. This was a forward-thinking check done in the case PageReserved was set by a driver-owned page mapped in userland with something like remap_pfn_range in a VM_PFNMAP region, but using hugepmds (not possible right now). It was meant to be very safe, but it's overkill as it's unlikely split_huge_page could ever run without the driver noticing and tearing down the hugepage itself. And if a driver in the future will really want to map a reserved hugepage in userland using an huge pmd it should simply take care of marking all subpages reserved too to keep KVM safe. This of course would require such a hypothetical driver to tear down the huge pmd itself and splitting the hugepage itself, instead of relaying on split_huge_page, but that sounds very reasonable, especially considering split_huge_page wouldn't currently transfer the reserved bit anyway. Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> --- virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 24 ++---------------------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c index 1580dd4..fa030fb 100644 --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c @@ -102,28 +102,8 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) { - if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { - int reserved; - struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); - struct page *head = compound_trans_head(tail); - reserved = PageReserved(head); - if (head != tail) { - /* - * "head" is not a dangling pointer - * (compound_trans_head takes care of that) - * but the hugepage may have been splitted - * from under us (and we may not hold a - * reference count on the head page so it can - * be reused before we run PageReferenced), so - * we've to check PageTail before returning - * what we just read. - */ - smp_rmb(); - if (PageTail(tail)) - return reserved; - } - return PageReserved(tail); - } + if (pfn_valid(pfn)) + return PageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn)); return true; } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-25 1:04 ` Andrea Arcangeli 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: Andrea Arcangeli @ 2013-07-25 1:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gleb Natapov Cc: Alexander Graf, "“tiejun.chen”", Bhushan Bharat-R65777, kvm-ppc, kvm@vger.kernel.org list, Wood Scott-B07421, Paolo Bonzini Hi! On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 01:30:12PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:25:18PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > > On 24.07.2013, at 12:19, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:09:42PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > >> > > >> On 24.07.2013, at 12:01, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > >> > > >>> Copying Andrea for him to verify that I am not talking nonsense :) > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > >>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > >>>>> index 1580dd4..5e8635b 100644 > > >>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > >>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > >>>>> @@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; > > >>>>> > > >>>>> bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > > >>>>> { > > >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > > >>>> > > >>>> I'd feel safer if we narrow this down to e500. > > >>>> > > >>>>> + /* > > >>>>> + * Currently only in memory hot remove case we may still need this. > > >>>>> + */ > > >>>>> if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { > > >>>> > > >>>> We still have to check for pfn_valid, no? So the #ifdef should be down here. > > >>>> > > >>>>> int reserved; > > >>>>> struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); > > >>>>> @@ -124,6 +128,7 @@ bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) > > >>>>> } > > >>>>> return PageReserved(tail); > > >>>>> } > > >>>>> +#endif > > >>>>> > > >>>>> return true; > > >>>>> } > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Before apply this change: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> real (1m19.954s + 1m20.918s + 1m22.740s + 1m21.146s + 1m22.120s)/5= 1m21.376s > > >>>>> user (0m23.181s + 0m23.550s + 0m23.506s + 0m23.410s + 0m23.520s)/5= 0m23.433s > > >>>>> sys (0m49.087s + 0m49.563s + 0m51.758s + 0m50.290s + 0m51.047s)/5= 0m50.349s > > >>>>> > > >>>>> After apply this change: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> real (1m19.507s + 1m20.919s + 1m21.436s + 1m21.179s + 1m20.293s)/5= 1m20.667s > > >>>>> user (0m22.595s + 0m22.719s + 0m22.484s + 0m22.811s + 0m22.467s)/5= 0m22.615s > > >>>>> sys (0m48.841s + 0m49.929s + 0m50.310s + 0m49.813s + 0m48.587s)/5= 0m49.496s > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> real (1m20.667s - 1m21.376s)/1m21.376s x 100% = -0.6% > > >>>>> user (0m22.615s - 0m23.433s)/0m23.433s x 100% = -3.5% > > >>>>> sys (0m49.496s - 0m50.349s)/0m50.349s x 100% = -1.7% > > >>>> > > >>>> Very nice, so there is a real world performance benefit to doing this. Then yes, I think it would make sense to change the global helper function to be fast on e500 and use that one from e500_shadow_mas2_attrib() instead. > > >>>> > > >>>> Gleb, Paolo, any hard feelings? > > >>>> > > >>> I do not see how can we break the function in such a way and get > > >>> away with it. Not all valid pfns point to memory. Physical address can > > >>> be sparse (due to PCI hole, framebuffer or just because). > > >> > > >> But we don't check for sparseness today in here either. We merely check for incomplete huge pages. > > >> > > > That's not how I read the code. The code checks for reserved flag set. > > > It should be set on pfns that point to memory holes. As far as I > > > > I couldn't find any traces of code that sets the reserved bits on e500 chips though. I've only seen it getting set for memory hotplug and memory incoherent DMA code which doesn't get used on e500. > > > > But I'd be more than happy to get proven wrong :). > > > Can you write a module that scans all page structures? AFAIK all pages > are marked as reserved and then those that become regular memory are > marked as unreserved. Hope Andrea will chime in here :) So the situation with regard to non-RAM and PageReserved/pfn_valid is quite simple. "struct page" exists for non-RAM too as "struct page" must exist up to at least 2^MAX_ORDER pfn alignment or things breaks, like the first pfn must be 2^MXA_ORDER aligned or again things break in the buddy. We don't make an effort to save a few "struct page" to keep it simpler. But those non-RAM pages (or tiny non-RAM page holes if any) are marked PageReserved. If "struct page" doesn't exist pfn_valid returns false. So you cannot get away skipping pfn_valid and at least one PageReserved. However it gets more complex than just ram vs non-RAM, because there are pages that are real RAM (not left marked PageReserved at boot after checking e820 or equivalent bios data for non-x86 archs) but that are taken over by drivers, than then could use it as mmio regions snooping the writes and mapping them in userland too as hugepages maybe. That is the motivation for the THP related code in kvm_is_mmio_pfn. Those vmas have VM_PFNMAP set so vm_normal_page is zero and the refcounting is skipped like if it's non-RAM and they're mapped with remap_pfn_range (different mechanism for VM_MIXEDMAP that does the refcounting and doesn't require in turn the driver to mark the page PageReserved). The above explains why KVM needs to skip the refcounting on PageReserved = true && pfn_valid() = true, and it must skip the refcounting for pfn_valid = false without trying to call pfn_to_page (or it'll crash). Now the code doing the THP check with smp_rmb is very safe, possibly too safe. Looking at it now, it looks a minor overengineering oversight. The slight oversight is that split_huge_page cannot transfer the PG_reserved bit from head to tail. So there's no real risk that the driver allocates an hugepage, marks the head reserved (the PG_ bits of a THP page are only relevant in the head), maps the page with some new version of remap_pfn_range_huge (not possible right now, PFNMAP|MIXEDMAP only can handle 4k mappings right now) and then split_huge_page runs and we miss the reserved bit on the tail page. Because the reserved bit wouldn't be transferred to the tail page anyway by split_huge_page so we'd miss it anyway if anything like that would happen. Besides split_huge_page couldn't run on a device owned page as it's not anonymous but device-owned and there's no way to map it with a hugepmd too. So in short, it's probably never going to help to have such a check there. We can probably optimize away the THP code in there. No matter how the driver maps this hypotetic new type of reserved hugepage in userland, it should never allow split_huge_page to run on it, and then it should take care of marking all subpages as reserved too. And KVM won't need to worry about a driver setting reserved only on a head page anymore. Untested RFC patch follows. = From 76927680df7034a575bed5da754f7ebe94481fb3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:56:08 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] kvm: optimize away THP checks in kvm_is_mmio_pfn() The checks on PG_reserved in the page structure on head and tail pages aren't necessary because split_huge_page wouldn't transfer the PG_reserved bit from head to tail anyway. This was a forward-thinking check done in the case PageReserved was set by a driver-owned page mapped in userland with something like remap_pfn_range in a VM_PFNMAP region, but using hugepmds (not possible right now). It was meant to be very safe, but it's overkill as it's unlikely split_huge_page could ever run without the driver noticing and tearing down the hugepage itself. And if a driver in the future will really want to map a reserved hugepage in userland using an huge pmd it should simply take care of marking all subpages reserved too to keep KVM safe. This of course would require such a hypothetical driver to tear down the huge pmd itself and splitting the hugepage itself, instead of relaying on split_huge_page, but that sounds very reasonable, especially considering split_huge_page wouldn't currently transfer the reserved bit anyway. Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> --- virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 24 ++---------------------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c index 1580dd4..fa030fb 100644 --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c @@ -102,28 +102,8 @@ static bool largepages_enabled = true; bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn) { - if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { - int reserved; - struct page *tail = pfn_to_page(pfn); - struct page *head = compound_trans_head(tail); - reserved = PageReserved(head); - if (head != tail) { - /* - * "head" is not a dangling pointer - * (compound_trans_head takes care of that) - * but the hugepage may have been splitted - * from under us (and we may not hold a - * reference count on the head page so it can - * be reused before we run PageReferenced), so - * we've to check PageTail before returning - * what we just read. - */ - smp_rmb(); - if (PageTail(tail)) - return reserved; - } - return PageReserved(tail); - } + if (pfn_valid(pfn)) + return PageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn)); return true; } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages 2013-07-18 6:16 ` Bharat Bhushan @ 2013-07-18 8:27 ` "“tiejun.chen”" -1 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bharat Bhushan; +Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, scottwood, Bharat Bhushan On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's > normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) > else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) > > This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device > > Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> > --- > arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int usermode) > return mas3; > } > > -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) > +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) > { > + u32 mas2_attr; > + > + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > + > + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { > + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; > + } else { > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; > -#else > - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; > #endif > + } Additionally, in UP case this little chunk of code is equivalent to if (1) { mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; } else { } So you'd better wrapper MAS2_m in advance like, #ifdef CONFIG_SMP #define M_IF_SMP MAS2_M #else #define M_IF_SMP 0 #endif Then if (1) mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; else mas2_attr |= M_IF_SMP; Tiejun > + return mas2_attr; > } > > /* > @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( > /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ > stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; > stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | > - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); > + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); > stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | > e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages @ 2013-07-18 8:27 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 0 siblings, 0 replies; 82+ messages in thread From: "“tiejun.chen”" @ 2013-07-18 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bharat Bhushan; +Cc: kvm-ppc, kvm, agraf, scottwood, Bharat Bhushan On 07/18/2013 02:04 PM, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > If there is a struct page for the requested mapping then it's > normal DDR and the mapping sets "M" bit (coherent, cacheable) > else this is treated as I/O and we set "I + G" (cache inhibited, guarded) > > This helps setting proper TLB mapping for direct assigned device > > Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhushan@freescale.com> > --- > arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > index 1c6a9d7..089c227 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c > @@ -64,13 +64,20 @@ static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(u32 mas3, int usermode) > return mas3; > } > > -static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, int usermode) > +static inline u32 e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(u32 mas2, pfn_t pfn) > { > + u32 mas2_attr; > + > + mas2_attr = mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > + > + if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) { > + mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; > + } else { > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > - return (mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK) | MAS2_M; > -#else > - return mas2 & MAS2_ATTRIB_MASK; > + mas2_attr |= MAS2_M; > #endif > + } Additionally, in UP case this little chunk of code is equivalent to if (1) { mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; } else { } So you'd better wrapper MAS2_m in advance like, #ifdef CONFIG_SMP #define M_IF_SMP MAS2_M #else #define M_IF_SMP 0 #endif Then if (1) mas2_attr |= MAS2_I | MAS2_G; else mas2_attr |= M_IF_SMP; Tiejun > + return mas2_attr; > } > > /* > @@ -313,7 +320,7 @@ static void kvmppc_e500_setup_stlbe( > /* Force IPROT=0 for all guest mappings. */ > stlbe->mas1 = MAS1_TSIZE(tsize) | get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) | MAS1_VALID; > stlbe->mas2 = (gvaddr & MAS2_EPN) | > - e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pr); > + e500_shadow_mas2_attrib(gtlbe->mas2, pfn); > stlbe->mas7_3 = ((u64)pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | > e500_shadow_mas3_attrib(gtlbe->mas7_3, pr); > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 82+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-07-26 22:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 82+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-07-18 6:04 [PATCH 1/2] kvm: powerpc: Do not ignore "E" attribute in mas2 Bharat Bhushan 2013-07-18 6:16 ` Bharat Bhushan 2013-07-18 6:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] kvm: powerpc: set cache coherency only for kernel managed pages Bharat Bhushan 2013-07-18 6:16 ` Bharat Bhushan 2013-07-18 6:26 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 6:26 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 7:12 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 2013-07-18 7:12 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 2013-07-18 7:31 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 7:31 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 8:08 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 2013-07-18 8:08 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 2013-07-18 8:21 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 8:21 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 8:22 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 2013-07-18 8:22 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 2013-07-18 8:25 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 2013-07-18 8:25 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 2013-07-18 8:55 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 8:55 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 9:44 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-18 9:44 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-18 9:56 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 9:56 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 10:00 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-18 10:00 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-18 10:14 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 10:14 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 16:11 ` Scott Wood 2013-07-18 16:11 ` Scott Wood 2013-07-18 9:48 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-18 9:48 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-18 9:51 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 2013-07-18 10:08 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 10:08 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 10:12 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-18 10:12 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-18 10:19 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 10:19 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 10:27 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-18 10:27 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-24 2:26 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-24 2:26 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-24 8:25 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-24 8:25 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-24 9:11 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 2013-07-24 9:11 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777 2013-07-24 9:21 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-24 9:21 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-24 9:35 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-24 9:35 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-24 9:39 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-24 9:39 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-24 20:32 ` Scott Wood 2013-07-24 20:32 ` Scott Wood 2013-07-24 20:32 ` Scott Wood 2013-07-25 8:50 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-25 8:50 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-25 8:50 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-25 16:07 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-25 16:07 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-25 16:07 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-25 16:14 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-25 16:14 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-25 16:14 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-26 22:27 ` Scott Wood 2013-07-26 22:27 ` Scott Wood 2013-07-26 22:27 ` Scott Wood 2013-07-24 10:01 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-24 10:01 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-24 10:09 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-24 10:09 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-24 10:19 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-24 10:19 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-24 10:25 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-24 10:25 ` Alexander Graf 2013-07-24 10:30 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-24 10:30 ` Gleb Natapov 2013-07-25 1:04 ` Andrea Arcangeli 2013-07-25 1:04 ` Andrea Arcangeli 2013-07-18 8:27 ` "“tiejun.chen”" 2013-07-18 8:27 ` "“tiejun.chen”"
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.