lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/11] Add "handle page fault" PV helper.

* Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:29:41PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:12:48PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 10:22:14AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > > > > > index f4cee90..14707dc 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > > > > > @@ -952,6 +952,9 @@ do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code)
> > > > > > > int write;
> > > > > > > int fault;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + if (arch_handle_page_fault(regs, error_code))
> > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch is not acceptable unless it's done cleaner. Currently we
> > > > > > already have 3 callbacks in do_page_fault() (kmemcheck, mmiotrace,
> > > > > > notifier), and this adds a fourth one. Please consolidate them into a
> > > > > > single callback site, this is a hotpath on x86.
> > > > > >
> > > > > This call is patched out by paravirt patching mechanism so overhead
> > > > > should be zero for non paravirt cases. [...]
> > > >
> > > > arch_handle_page_fault() isnt upstream yet - precisely what is the
> > > > instruction sequence injected into do_page_fault() in the patched-out
> > > > case?
> > >
> > > It is introduced by the same patch. The instruction inserted is:
> > > xor %rax, %rax
> >
> > ok.
> >
> > My observations still stand:
> >
> > > > > [...] What do you want to achieve by consolidate them into single
> > > > > callback? [...]
> > > >
> > > > Less bloat in a hotpath and a shared callback infrastructure.
> > > >
> > > > > [...] I mean the code will still exist and will have to be executed on
> > > > > every #PF. Is the goal to move them out of line?
> > > >
> > > > The goal is to have a single callback site for all the users - which
> > > > call-site is patched out ideally - on non-paravirt too if needed. Most
> > > > of these callbacks/notifier-chains have are inactive most of the time.
> > > >
> > > > I.e. a very low overhead 'conditional callback' facility, and a single
> > > > one - not just lots of them sprinkled around the code.
> >
> > looks like a golden opportunity to get this right.
> >
> Three existing callbacks are: kmemcheck, mmiotrace, notifier. Two
> of them kmemcheck, mmiotrace are enabled only for debugging, should
> not be performance concern. And notifier call sites (two of them)
> are deliberately, as explained by comment, not at the function entry,
> so can't be unified with others. (And kmemcheck also has two different
> call site BTW)

We want mmiotrace to be generic distro capable so the overhead when the
hook is not used is of concern.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-08 12:39    [W:1.254 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site