From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: gleb@redhat.com, avi.kivity@gmail.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/15] KVM: MMU: lazily drop large spte
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:39:57 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130930223957.GA3262@amt.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1378376958-27252-4-git-send-email-xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:29:06PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Currently, kvm zaps the large spte if write-protected is needed, the later
> read can fault on that spte. Actually, we can make the large spte readonly
> instead of making them un-present, the page fault caused by read access can
> be avoided
>
> The idea is from Avi:
> | As I mentioned before, write-protecting a large spte is a good idea,
> | since it moves some work from protect-time to fault-time, so it reduces
> | jitter. This removes the need for the return value.
>
> This version has fixed the issue reported in 6b73a9606, the reason of that
> issue is that fast_page_fault() directly sets the readonly large spte to
> writable but only dirty the first page into the dirty-bitmap that means
> other pages are missed. Fixed it by only the normal sptes (on the
> PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL level) can be fast fixed
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 8 ++++++--
> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> index 869f1db..88107ee 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -1177,8 +1177,7 @@ static void drop_large_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep)
>
> /*
> * Write-protect on the specified @sptep, @pt_protect indicates whether
> - * spte writ-protection is caused by protecting shadow page table.
> - * @flush indicates whether tlb need be flushed.
> + * spte write-protection is caused by protecting shadow page table.
> *
> * Note: write protection is difference between drity logging and spte
> * protection:
> @@ -1187,10 +1186,9 @@ static void drop_large_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep)
> * - for spte protection, the spte can be writable only after unsync-ing
> * shadow page.
> *
> - * Return true if the spte is dropped.
> + * Return true if tlb need be flushed.
> */
> -static bool
> -spte_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep, bool *flush, bool pt_protect)
> +static bool spte_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep, bool pt_protect)
> {
> u64 spte = *sptep;
>
> @@ -1200,17 +1198,11 @@ spte_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep, bool *flush, bool pt_protect)
>
> rmap_printk("rmap_write_protect: spte %p %llx\n", sptep, *sptep);
>
> - if (__drop_large_spte(kvm, sptep)) {
> - *flush |= true;
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> if (pt_protect)
> spte &= ~SPTE_MMU_WRITEABLE;
> spte = spte & ~PT_WRITABLE_MASK;
>
> - *flush |= mmu_spte_update(sptep, spte);
> - return false;
> + return mmu_spte_update(sptep, spte);
> }
Is it necessary for kvm_mmu_unprotect_page to search for an entire range large
page range now, instead of a 4k page?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-30 22:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-05 10:29 [PATCH v2 00/15] KVM: MMU: locklessly wirte-protect Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 01/15] KVM: MMU: fix the count of spte number Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-08 12:19 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-09-08 13:55 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-08 14:01 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-09-08 14:24 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-08 14:26 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 02/15] KVM: MMU: properly check last spte in fast_page_fault() Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-30 21:23 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-10-03 6:16 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 03/15] KVM: MMU: lazily drop large spte Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-30 22:39 ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2013-10-03 6:29 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 04/15] KVM: MMU: flush tlb if the spte can be locklessly modified Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 05/15] KVM: MMU: flush tlb out of mmu lock when write-protect the sptes Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-30 23:05 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-10-03 6:46 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 06/15] KVM: MMU: update spte and add it into rmap before dirty log Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 07/15] KVM: MMU: redesign the algorithm of pte_list Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 08/15] KVM: MMU: introduce nulls desc Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 09/15] KVM: MMU: introduce pte-list lockless walker Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-08 12:03 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-16 12:42 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-09-16 13:52 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-16 15:04 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 10/15] KVM: MMU: initialize the pointers in pte_list_desc properly Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 11/15] KVM: MMU: reintroduce kvm_mmu_isolate_page() Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 12/15] KVM: MMU: allow locklessly access shadow page table out of vcpu thread Xiao Guangrong
2013-10-08 1:23 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-10-08 4:02 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-10-09 1:56 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-10-09 10:45 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-10-10 1:47 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-10-10 12:08 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-10-10 16:42 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-10-10 19:16 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-10-10 21:03 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-10-11 5:38 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-10-11 20:30 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-10-12 5:53 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-10-14 19:29 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-10-15 3:57 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-10-15 22:21 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-10-16 0:41 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-10-16 9:12 ` Gleb Natapov
2013-10-16 20:43 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 13/15] KVM: MMU: locklessly write-protect the page Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 14/15] KVM: MMU: clean up spte_write_protect Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-05 10:29 ` [PATCH v2 15/15] KVM: MMU: use rcu functions to access the pointer Xiao Guangrong
2013-09-15 10:26 ` [PATCH v2 00/15] KVM: MMU: locklessly wirte-protect Gleb Natapov
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=20130930223957.GA3262@amt.cnet \
--to=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=avi.kivity@gmail.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.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).