From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, bgardon@google.com, dmatlack@google.com,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 0/7] Optimize clear dirty log
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 13:40:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZBoWNdwGho5bZ+Kz@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZBoMIJipRtmvsNXg@google.com>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 5:41 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > Did a cursory glance, looks good. I'll do a more thorough pass next week and get
> > > > it queued up if all goes well. No need for a v4 at this point, I'll fixup David's
> > > > various nits when applying.
> > >
> > > Ooof, that ended up being painful. In hindsight, I should have asked for a v4,
> > > but damage done, and it's my fault for throwing you a big blob of code in the
> > > first place.
> > >
> > > I ended up splitting the "interesting" patches into three each:
> > >
> > > 1. Switch to the atomic-AND
> > > 2. Drop the access-tracking / dirty-logging (as appropriate)
> > > 3. Drop the call to __handle_changed_spte()
> > >
> > > because logically they are three different things (although obviously related).
> > >
> > > I have pushed the result to kvm-x86/mmu, but haven't merged to kvm-x86/next or
> > > sent thanks because it's not yet tested. I'll do testing tomorrow, but if you
> > > can take a look in the meantime to make sure I didn't do something completely
> > > boneheaded, it'd be much appreciated.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for refactoring the patches. I reviewed the commits, no obvious
> > red flags from my side. Few small nits I found:
> >
> > commit e534a94eac07 ("KVM: x86/mmu: Use kvm_ad_enabled() to determine
> > if TDP MMU SPTEs need wrprot")
> > - kvm_ad_enabled() should be outside the loop.
>
> Hmm, I deliberately left it inside the loop, but I agree that it would be better
> to hoist it out in that commit.
>
> > commit 69032b5d71ef (" KVM: x86/mmu: Atomically clear SPTE dirty state
> > in the clear-dirty-log flow")
> > - MMU_WARN_ON(kvm_ad_enabled() &&
> > spte_ad_need_write_protect(iter.old_spte) should be after
> > if(iter.level > PG_LEVEL_4k...)
>
> Ah, hrm. This was also deliberate, but looking at the diff I agree that relative
> to the diff, it's an unnecessary/unrelated change. I think what I'll do is
> land the assertion above the "if (iter.level > PG_LEVEL_4K ||" in the above
> commit that switches to kvm_ad_enabled(). That way there shouldn't be any change
> for the assertion in this commit.
Aha! Even better, split this into yet one more patch to dedup the guts before
switching to the atomic-AND, and give clear_dirty_gfn_range() the same treatment.
That further isolates the changes, provides solid justification for hoisting the
kvm_ad_enabled() check out of the loop (it's basically guaranteed to be a single
memory read that hits the L1), and keeps clear_dirty_gfn_range() and
clear_dirty_pt_masked() as similar as is reasonably possible.
Speaking of which, I'll send a patch to remove the redundant is_shadow_present_pte()
check in clear_dirty_gfn_range(), that's already handled by tdp_root_for_each_leaf_pte().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-21 20:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-11 1:46 [Patch v3 0/7] Optimize clear dirty log Vipin Sharma
2023-02-11 1:46 ` [Patch v3 1/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Add a helper function to check if an SPTE needs atomic write Vipin Sharma
2023-02-11 1:46 ` [Patch v3 2/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Atomically clear SPTE dirty state in the clear-dirty-log flow Vipin Sharma
2023-02-15 21:12 ` David Matlack
2023-03-17 22:59 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-03-17 23:50 ` Vipin Sharma
2023-02-11 1:46 ` [Patch v3 3/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Remove "record_dirty_log" in __tdp_mmu_set_spte() Vipin Sharma
2023-02-15 21:10 ` David Matlack
2023-02-11 1:46 ` [Patch v3 4/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Optimize SPTE change for aging gfn range Vipin Sharma
2023-02-15 21:15 ` David Matlack
2023-03-21 0:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-11 1:46 ` [Patch v3 5/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Remove "record_acc_track" in __tdp_mmu_set_spte() Vipin Sharma
2023-02-22 19:31 ` David Matlack
2023-02-11 1:46 ` [Patch v3 6/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Remove handle_changed_spte_dirty_log() Vipin Sharma
2023-02-22 19:36 ` David Matlack
2023-02-11 1:46 ` [Patch v3 7/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Merge all handle_changed_pte* functions Vipin Sharma
2023-02-22 19:42 ` David Matlack
2023-03-17 22:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-03-17 23:48 ` Vipin Sharma
2023-03-17 22:57 ` [Patch v3 0/7] Optimize clear dirty log Sean Christopherson
2023-03-17 23:51 ` Vipin Sharma
2023-03-21 0:41 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-03-21 18:11 ` Vipin Sharma
2023-03-21 19:57 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-03-21 20:40 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2023-03-21 21:38 ` Sean Christopherson
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=ZBoWNdwGho5bZ+Kz@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=bgardon@google.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=vipinsh@google.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).