lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: mmu notifier #v14
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 01:59:23PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> +static void kvm_unmap_spte(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *spte)
>> +{
>> + struct page *page = pfn_to_page((*spte & PT64_BASE_ADDR_MASK) >>
>> PAGE_SHIFT);
>> + get_page(page);
>>
>
> You should not assume a struct page exists for any given spte. Instead, use
> kvm_get_pfn() and kvm_release_pfn_clean().

Last email from muli@ibm in my inbox argues it's useless to build rmap
on mmio regions, so the above is more efficient so put_page runs
directly on the page without going back and forth between spte -> pfn
-> page -> pfn -> page in a single function.

Certainly if we start building rmap on mmio regions we'll have to
change that.

> Perhaps I just have a weak stomach but I am uneasy having a function that
> takes a lock on exit. I walked through the logic and it doesn't appear to
> be wrong but it also is pretty clear that you could defer the acquisition
> of the lock to the caller (in this case, kvm_mmu_pte_write) by moving the
> update_pte assignment into kvm_mmu_pte_write.

I agree out_lock is an uncommon exit path, the problem is that the
code was buggy, and I tried to fix it with the smallest possible
change and that resulting in an out_lock. That section likely need a
refactoring, all those update_pte fields should be at least returned
by the function guess_.... but I tried to reduce the changes to make
the issue more readable, I didn't want to rewrite certain functions
just to take a spinlock a few instructions ahead.
> Worst case, you pass 4 more pointer arguments here and, take the spin lock,
> and then depending on the result of mmu_guess_page_from_pte_write, update
> vcpu->arch.update_pte.

Yes that was my same idea, but that's left for a later patch. Fixing
this bug mixed with the mmu notifier patch was perhaps excessive
already ;).

> Why move the destruction of the vm to the MMU notifier unregister hook?
> Does anything else ever call mmu_notifier_unregister that would implicitly
> destroy the VM?

mmu notifier ->release can run at anytime before the filehandle is
closed. ->release has to zap all sptes and freeze the mmu (hence all
vcpus) to prevent any further page fault. After ->release returns all
pages are freed (we'll never relay on the page pin to avoid the
rmap_remove put_page to be a relevant unpin event). So the idea is
that I wanted to maintain the same ordering of the current code in the
vm destroy event, I didn't want to leave a partially shutdown VM on
the vmlist. If the ordering is entirely irrelevant and the
kvm_arch_destroy_vm can run well before kvm_destroy_vm is called, then
I can avoid changes to kvm_main.c but I doubt.

I've done it in a way that archs not needing mmu notifiers like s390
can simply add the kvm_destroy_common_vm at the top of their
kvm_arch_destroy_vm. All others using mmu_notifiers have to invoke
kvm_destroy_common_vm in the ->release of the mmu notifiers.

This will ensure that everything will be ok regardless if exit_mmap is
called before/after exit_files, and it won't make a whole lot of
difference anymore, if the driver fd is pinned through vmas->vm_file
released in exit_mmap or through the task filedescriptors relased in
exit_files etc... Infact this allows to call mmu_notifier_unregister
at anytime later after the task has already been killed, without any
trouble (like if the mmu notifier owner isn't registering in
current->mm but some other tasks mm).

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-27 02:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans