lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4 changelog-v2] KVM: Switch to srcu-less get_dirty_log()
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 11:43:17PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > + spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> >
> > It is not clear why mmu_lock is needed. Dropping it across the xchg loop
> > should be similar to srcu implementation, in that concurrent updates
> > will be visible only on the next get_dirty call? Well, it is necessary
> > anyway for write protecting the sptes.
>
> My implementation does write protection inside the xchg loop.
> Then, after that loop, flushes TLB.
>
> mmu_lock must protect both of these together.
>
> If we do not mind scanning the bitmap twice, we can decouple the
> xchg loop and write protection, but it will be a bit slower, and in
> any case we need to hold mmu_lock until TLB is flushed.

Why is it necessary to scan twice? Simply continuing to the next set
of pages, after dropping the lock, should be enough.

The potential problem i am referring to is:

- kvm.git next + srcu-less series
average(ns) stdev ns/page pages improvement(%)

8497356.4 16441.0 32.4 256K -29

So 8ms for 1GB. Assuming it increases linearly, it would take
400ms for get_dirty on a 50GB slot (most of that time spent
with mmu_lock held). Is this correct?

> As can be seen from the unit-test result the majority of time
> is being spent on write protecting sptes, so decoupling xchg loop
> alone will not alleviate the problem so much -- my guess.
>
> > A cond_resched_lock() would alleviate the potentially long held
> > times for mmu_lock (can you measure it with large memslots?)
>
> How to move TLB flush out of mmu_lock critical sections was discussed
> before, and there seemed to be some proposals.
>
> Anyone is working on that?
>
> After that we can do many things.
>
> One idea is to make the extra bitmap buffer size shrink to one page
> or so and do xchg and write protection loop by that limited size.
>
> Because we can drop mmu_lock, it is possible to copy_to_user part of
> the dirty bitmap, and then go to the next part.
>
> After everything is protected, we can then do TLB flush after dropping
> mmu_lock.
>
> > Otherwise looks nice.
>
> Thanks,
> Takuya
>
>
> > > - r = -ENOMEM;
> > > - slots = kmemdup(kvm->memslots, sizeof(*kvm->memslots), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > - if (!slots)
> > > - goto out;
> > > + for (i = 0; i < n / sizeof(long); i++) {
> > > + unsigned long mask;
> > > + gfn_t offset;
> > >
> > > - memslot = id_to_memslot(slots, log->slot);
> > > - memslot->nr_dirty_pages = 0;
> > > - memslot->dirty_bitmap = dirty_bitmap_head;
> > > - update_memslots(slots, NULL);
> > > + if (!dirty_bitmap[i])
> > > + continue;
> > >
> > > - old_slots = kvm->memslots;
> > > - rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots, slots);
> > > - synchronize_srcu_expedited(&kvm->srcu);
> > > - kfree(old_slots);
> > > + is_dirty = true;
> > >
> > > - write_protect_slot(kvm, memslot, dirty_bitmap, nr_dirty_pages);
> > > + mask = xchg(&dirty_bitmap[i], 0);
> > > + dirty_bitmap_buffer[i] = mask;
> > >
> > > - r = -EFAULT;
> > > - if (copy_to_user(log->dirty_bitmap, dirty_bitmap, n))
> > > - goto out;
> > > - } else {
> > > - r = -EFAULT;
> > > - if (clear_user(log->dirty_bitmap, n))
> > > - goto out;
> > > + offset = i * BITS_PER_LONG;
> > > + kvm_mmu_write_protect_pt_masked(kvm, memslot, offset, mask);
> > > }
> > > + if (is_dirty)
> > > + kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
> > > +
> > > + spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-06 16:07    [W:0.092 / U:46.668 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site