From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
Cc: gleb@kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kai.huang@linux.intel.com,
jike.song@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/11] KVM: page track: introduce kvm_page_track_{add,remove}_page
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:15:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56CC6980.4010904@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56CBDD85.6050109@linux.intel.com>
On 23/02/2016 05:18, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
>
> On 02/19/2016 07:37 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14/02/2016 12:31, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>> + /* does tracking count wrap? */
>>> + WARN_ON((count > 0) && (val + count < val));
>>
>> This doesn't work, because "val + count" is an int.
>
> val is 'unsigned short val' and count is 'short', so
> 'val + count' is not int...
Actually, it is. "val" and "count" are both promoted to int, and the
result of "val + count" is an int!
>>> +void kvm_page_track_add_page(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn,
>>> + enum kvm_page_track_mode mode)
>>> +{
>>> + struct kvm_memslots *slots;
>>> + struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
>>> + int i;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM; i++) {
>>> + slots = __kvm_memslots(kvm, i);
>>> +
>>> + slot = __gfn_to_memslot(slots, gfn);
>>> + if (!slot)
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>> + kvm_slot_page_track_add_page_nolock(kvm, slot, gfn, mode);
>>> + spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>
>> I don't think it is right to walk all address spaces. The good news is
>
> Then we can not track the page in SMM mode, but i think it is not a big
> problem as SMM is invisible to OS (it is expected to not hurting OS) and
> current shadow page in normal spaces can not reflect the changes happend
> in SMM either. So it is okay to only take normal space into account.
I think which address space to track depends on the scenario where
you're using page tracking. For example, in the shadow case you only
track either SMM or non-SMM depending on the CPU's mode.
For KVM-GT you probably need to track only non-SMM.
>> that you're not using kvm_page_track_{add,remove}_page at all as far as
>> I can see, so you can just remove them.
>
> kvm_page_track_{add,remove}_page, which hides the mmu specifics (e.g. slot,
> mmu-lock, etc.) and are exported as APIs for other users, are just the
> small wrappers of kvm_slot_page_track_{add,remove}_page_nolock and the
> nolock functions are used in the later patch.
>
> If you think it is not a good time to export these APIs, i am okay to
> export _nolock functions only in the next version.
Yes, please.
>> Also, when you will need it, I think it's better to move the
>> spin_lock/spin_unlock pair outside the for loop. With this change,
>> perhaps it's better to leave it to the caller completely---but I cannot
>> say until I see the caller.
>
> I will remove page tracking in SMM address space, so this is no loop in
> the next version. ;)
Instead please just remove the functions completely. Functions without
a caller are unnecessary.
>> In the meanwhile, please leave out _nolock from the other functions'
>> name.
>
> I just wanted to warn the user that these functions are not safe as they
> are not protected by mmu-lock. I will remove these hints if you dislike
> them.
I think there's several other functions that are not protected by
mmu-lock. You can instead add kerneldoc comments and mention the
locking requirements there.
The common convention in the kernel is to have function take the lock
and call __function. In this case however there is no "locked" function
yet; if it comes later, we will rename the functions to add "__" in front.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-23 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-14 11:31 [PATCH v3 00/11] KVM: x86: track guest page access Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-14 11:31 ` [PATCH v3 01/11] KVM: MMU: rename has_wrprotected_page to mmu_gfn_lpage_is_disallowed Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-19 11:08 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-14 11:31 ` [PATCH v3 02/11] KVM: MMU: introduce kvm_mmu_gfn_{allow,disallow}_lpage Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-19 11:09 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-14 11:31 ` [PATCH v3 03/11] KVM: MMU: introduce kvm_mmu_slot_gfn_write_protect Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-19 11:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-14 11:31 ` [PATCH v3 04/11] KVM: page track: add the framework of guest page tracking Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-19 11:24 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-23 3:57 ` Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-14 11:31 ` [PATCH v3 05/11] KVM: page track: introduce kvm_page_track_{add,remove}_page Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-19 11:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-23 4:18 ` Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-23 14:15 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2016-02-19 11:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-23 4:18 ` Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-14 11:31 ` [PATCH v3 06/11] KVM: MMU: let page fault handler be aware tracked page Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-19 11:45 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-23 4:19 ` Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-14 11:31 ` [PATCH v3 07/11] KVM: page track: add notifier support Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-19 11:51 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-23 4:34 ` Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-23 14:16 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-14 11:31 ` [PATCH v3 08/11] KVM: MMU: use page track for non-leaf shadow pages Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-14 11:31 ` [PATCH v3 09/11] KVM: MMU: simplify mmu_need_write_protect Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-14 11:31 ` [PATCH v3 10/11] KVM: MMU: clear write-flooding on the fast path of tracked page Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-19 11:55 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-23 4:36 ` Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-14 11:31 ` [PATCH v3 11/11] KVM: MMU: apply page track notifier Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-19 11:56 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-23 4:40 ` Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-23 14:17 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-19 12:00 ` [PATCH v3 00/11] KVM: x86: track guest page access Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-22 10:05 ` Xiao Guangrong
2016-02-23 3:02 ` Jike Song
2016-02-23 5:44 ` Tian, Kevin
2016-02-23 12:13 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-23 10:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-23 11:50 ` Jike Song
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=56CC6980.4010904@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@kernel.org \
--cc=guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jike.song@intel.com \
--cc=kai.huang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@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).