lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/13] KVM: MMU: get expected spte out of mmu-lock
On 04/05/2012 09:25 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 04/01/2012 11:53 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > On 03/29/2012 11:25 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> It depends on PTE_LIST_WRITE_PROTECT bit in rmap which let us quickly know
> >> whether the page is writable out of mmu-lock
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> >> arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h | 2 +-
> >> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> index 3887a07..c029185 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> @@ -1148,6 +1148,12 @@ static int rmap_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, u64 gfn)
> >>
> >> *rmapp |= PTE_LIST_WRITE_PROTECT;
> >>
> >> + /*
> >> + * Setting PTE_LIST_WRITE_PROTECT bit before doing page
> >> + * write-protect.
> >> + */
> >> + smp_mb();
> >> +
> >
> > wmb only needed.
> >
>
>
> We should ensure setting this bit before reading spte, it cooperates with
> fast page fault path to avoid this case:
>
> On fast page fault path: On rmap_write_protect path:
> read spte: old_spte = *spte
> (reading spte is reordered to the front of
> setting PTE_LIST_WRITE_PROTECT bit)
> set spte.identification
> smp_mb
> if (!rmap.PTE_LIST_WRITE_PROTECT)
> set rmap.PTE_LIST_WRITE_PROTECT
> cmpxchg(sptep, spte, spte | WRITABLE)
> see old_spte.identification is not set,
> so it does not write-protect this page
> OOPS!!!

Ah, so it's protecting two paths at the same time: rmap.write_protect ->
fast page fault, and lock(sptep) -> write protect.

The whole thing needs to be documented very carefully in locking.txt,
otherwise mmu.c will be write-protected to everyone except you.

> > Would it be better to store this bit in all the sptes instead? We're
> > touching them in any case. More work to clear them, but
> > un-write-protecting a page is beneficial anyway as it can save a fault.
> >
>
> There are two reasons:
> - if we set this bit in rmap, we can do the quickly check to see the page is
> writble before doing shadow page walking.
>
> - since a full barrier is needed, we should use smp_mb for every spte like this:
>
> while ((spte = rmap_next(rmapp, spte))) {
> read spte
> smp_mb
> write-protect spte
> }
>
> smp_mb is called in the loop, i think it is not good, yes?

Yes, agree.

> If you just want to save the fault, we can let all spte to be writeable in
> mmu_need_write_protect, but we should cache gpte access bits into spte firstly.
> It should be another patchset i think. :)

Yes.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-09 14:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans