From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] KVM: X86: Optimize zapping rmap
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 21:39:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YQHOdhMoFW821HAu@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210625153419.43671-1-peterx@redhat.com>
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, Peter Xu wrote:
> Using rmap_get_first() and rmap_remove() for zapping a huge rmap list could be
> slow. The easy way is to travers the rmap list, collecting the a/d bits and
> free the slots along the way.
>
> Provide a pte_list_destroy() and do exactly that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index ba0258bdebc4..45aac78dcabc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -1014,6 +1014,38 @@ unsigned int pte_list_count(struct kvm_rmap_head *rmap_head)
> return count;
> }
>
> +/* Return true if rmap existed and callback called, false otherwise */
> +static bool pte_list_destroy(struct kvm_rmap_head *rmap_head,
> + int (*callback)(u64 *sptep))
> +{
> + struct pte_list_desc *desc, *next;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (!rmap_head->val)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (!(rmap_head->val & 1)) {
> + if (callback)
> + callback((u64 *)rmap_head->val);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(rmap_head->val & ~1ul);
> +
> + while (desc) {
> + if (callback)
> + for (i = 0; i < desc->spte_count; i++)
> + callback(desc->sptes[i]);
> + next = desc->more;
> + mmu_free_pte_list_desc(desc);
> + desc = next;
Alternatively,
desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(rmap_head->val & ~1ul);
for ( ; desc; desc = next) {
for (i = 0; i < desc->spte_count; i++)
mmu_spte_clear_track_bits((u64 *)rmap_head->val);
next = desc->more;
mmu_free_pte_list_desc(desc);
}
> + }
> +out:
> + /* rmap_head is meaningless now, remember to reset it */
> + rmap_head->val = 0;
> + return true;
Why implement this as a generic method with a callback? gcc is suprisingly
astute in optimizing callback(), but I don't see the point of adding a complex
helper that has a single caller, and is extremely unlikely to gain new callers.
Or is there another "zap everything" case I'm missing?
E.g. why not this?
static bool kvm_zap_rmapp(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_rmap_head *rmap_head,
const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
{
struct pte_list_desc *desc, *next;
int i;
if (!rmap_head->val)
return false;
if (!(rmap_head->val & 1)) {
mmu_spte_clear_track_bits((u64 *)rmap_head->val);
goto out;
}
desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(rmap_head->val & ~1ul);
for ( ; desc; desc = next) {
for (i = 0; i < desc->spte_count; i++)
mmu_spte_clear_track_bits(desc->sptes[i]);
next = desc->more;
mmu_free_pte_list_desc(desc);
}
out:
/* rmap_head is meaningless now, remember to reset it */
rmap_head->val = 0;
return true;
}
> +}
> +
> static struct kvm_rmap_head *__gfn_to_rmap(gfn_t gfn, int level,
> struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
> {
> @@ -1403,18 +1435,7 @@ static bool rmap_write_protect(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 gfn)
> static bool kvm_zap_rmapp(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_rmap_head *rmap_head,
> struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
> {
> - u64 *sptep;
> - struct rmap_iterator iter;
> - bool flush = false;
> -
> - while ((sptep = rmap_get_first(rmap_head, &iter))) {
> - rmap_printk("spte %p %llx.\n", sptep, *sptep);
> -
> - pte_list_remove(rmap_head, sptep);
> - flush = true;
> - }
> -
> - return flush;
> + return pte_list_destroy(rmap_head, mmu_spte_clear_track_bits);
> }
>
> static bool kvm_unmap_rmapp(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_rmap_head *rmap_head,
> --
> 2.31.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-28 21:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-25 15:32 [PATCH v2 0/9] KVM: X86: Some light optimizations on rmap logic Peter Xu
2021-06-25 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] KVM: X86: Add per-vm stat for max rmap list size Peter Xu
2021-06-25 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] KVM: Introduce kvm_get_kvm_safe() Peter Xu
2021-07-26 13:42 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-06-25 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] KVM: Allow to have arch-specific per-vm debugfs files Peter Xu
2021-06-25 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] KVM: X86: Introduce pte_list_count() helper Peter Xu
2021-06-25 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] KVM: X86: Introduce kvm_mmu_slot_lpages() helpers Peter Xu
2021-06-25 15:32 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] KVM: X86: Introduce mmu_rmaps_stat per-vm debugfs file Peter Xu
2021-06-25 15:34 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] KVM: X86: MMU: Tune PTE_LIST_EXT to be bigger Peter Xu
2021-07-28 21:01 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-06-25 15:34 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] KVM: X86: Optimize pte_list_desc with per-array counter Peter Xu
2021-07-28 21:04 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-28 21:51 ` Peter Xu
2021-07-29 9:33 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-07-29 15:53 ` Peter Xu
2021-07-30 15:45 ` Peter Xu
2021-06-25 15:34 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] KVM: X86: Optimize zapping rmap Peter Xu
2021-07-28 21:39 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2021-07-28 22:01 ` Peter Xu
2021-07-28 22:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-07-29 9:35 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-07-26 13:05 ` [PATCH v2 0/9] KVM: X86: Some light optimizations on rmap logic Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YQHOdhMoFW821HAu@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).