lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/13] KVM: MMU: fast page fault
On 03/29/2012 11:20 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> * Idea
> The present bit of page fault error code (EFEC.P) indicates whether the
> page table is populated on all levels, if this bit is set, we can know
> the page fault is caused by the page-protection bits (e.g. W/R bit) or
> the reserved bits.
>
> In KVM, in most cases, all this kind of page fault (EFEC.P = 1) can be
> simply fixed: the page fault caused by reserved bit
> (EFFC.P = 1 && EFEC.RSV = 1) has already been filtered out in fast mmio
> path. What we need do to fix the rest page fault (EFEC.P = 1 && RSV != 1)
> is just increasing the corresponding access on the spte.
>
> This pachset introduces a fast path to fix this kind of page fault: it
> is out of mmu-lock and need not walk host page table to get the mapping
> from gfn to pfn.

Wow!

Looks like interesting times are back in mmu-land.

Comments below are before review of actual patches, so maybe they're
already answered there, or maybe they're just nonsense.

> * Advantage
> - it is really fast
> it fixes page fault out of mmu-lock, and uses a very light way to avoid
> the race with other pathes. Also, it fixes page fault in the front of
> gfn_to_pfn, it means no host page table walking.
>
> - we can get lots of page fault with PFEC.P = 1 in KVM:
> - in the case of ept/npt
>  after shadow page become stable (all gfn is mapped in shadow page table,
>  it is a short stage since only one shadow page table is used and only a
>  few of page is needed), almost all page fault is caused by write-protect
>  (frame-buffer under Xwindow, migration), the other small part is caused
>  by page merge/COW under KSM/THP.
>
> We do not hope it can fix the page fault caused by the read-only host
> page of KSM, since after COW, all the spte pointing to the gfn will be
> unmapped.
>
> - in the case of soft mmu
> - many spurious page fault due to tlb lazily flushed
> - lots of write-protect page fault (dirty bit track for guest pte, shadow
> page table write-protected, frame-buffer under Xwindow, migration, ...)
>
>
> * Implementation
> We can freely walk the page between walk_shadow_page_lockless_begin and
> walk_shadow_page_lockless_end, it can ensure all the shadow page is valid.
>
> In the most case, cmpxchg is fair enough to change the access bit of spte,
> but the write-protect path on softmmu/nested mmu is a especial case: it is
> a read-check-modify path: read spte, check W bit, then clear W bit.

We also set gpte.D and gpte.A, no? How do you handle that?

> In order
> to avoid marking spte writable after/during page write-protect, we do the
> trick like below:
>
> fast page fault path:
> lock RCU
> set identification in the spte

What if you can't (already taken)? Spin? Slow path?

> smp_mb()
> if (!rmap.PTE_LIST_WRITE_PROTECT)
> cmpxchg + w - vcpu-id
> unlock RCU
>
> write protect path:
> lock mmu-lock
> set rmap.PTE_LIST_WRITE_PROTECT
> smp_mb()
> if (spte.w || spte has identification)
> clear w bit and identification
> unlock mmu-lock
>
> Setting identification in the spte is used to notify page-protect path to
> modify the spte, then we can see the change in the cmpxchg.
>
> Setting identification is also a trick: it only set the last bit of spte
> that does not change the mapping and lose cpu status bits.

There are plenty of available bits, 53-62.

>
> The identification should be unique to avoid the below race:
>
> VCPU 0 VCPU 1 VCPU 2
> lock RCU
> spte + identification
> check conditions
> do write-protect, clear
> identification
> lock RCU
> set identification
> cmpxchg + w - identification
> OOPS!!!

Is it not sufficient to use just two bits?

pf_lock - taken by page fault path
wp_lock - taken by write protect path

pf cmpxchg checks both bits.

> We choose the vcpu id as the unique value, currently, 254 vcpus on VMX
> and 127 vcpus on softmmu can be fast. Keep it simply firtsly. :)
>
>
> * Performance
> It introduces a full memory barrier on the page write-protect path, i
> have done the test of kernbench in the text mode which does not generate
> write-protect page fault by frame-buffer avoiding the optimization
> introduced by this patch, it shows no regression.
>
> And there is the result tested by x11perf and migration on autotest:
>
> x11perf (x11perf -repeat 10 -comppixwin500):
> (Host: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2540M CPU @ 2.60GHz * 4 + 4G
> Guest: 4 vcpus + 1G)
>
> - For ept:
> $ x11perfcomp baseline-hard optimaze-hard
> 1: baseline-hard
> 2: optimaze-hard
>
> 1 2 Operation
> -------- -------- ---------
> 7060.0 7150.0 Composite 500x500 from pixmap to window
>
> - For shadow mmu:
> $ x11perfcomp baseline-soft optimaze-soft
> 1: baseline-soft
> 2: optimaze-soft
>
> 1 2 Operation
> -------- -------- ---------
> 6980.0 7490.0 Composite 500x500 from pixmap to window
>
> ( It is interesting that after this patch, the performance of x11perf on
> softmmu is better than it on hardmmu, i have tested it for many times,
> it is really true. :) )

It could be because you cannot use THP with dirty logging, so you pay
the overhead of TDP.

> autotest migration:
> (Host: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5690 @ 3.47GHz * 12 + 32G)
>
> - For ept:
>
> Before:
> smp2.Fedora.16.64.migrate
> Times .unix .with_autotest.dbench.unix total
> 1 102 204 309
> 2 68 203 275
> 3 67 218 289
>
> After:
> smp2.Fedora.16.64.migrate
> Times .unix .with_autotest.dbench.unix total
> 1 103 189 295
> 2 67 188 259
> 3 64 202 271
>
>
> - For shadow mmu:
>
> Before:
> smp2.Fedora.16.64.migrate
> Times .unix .with_autotest.dbench.unix total
> 1 102 262 368
> 2 68 220 292
> 3 68 234 307
>
> After:
> smp2.Fedora.16.64.migrate
> Times .unix .with_autotest.dbench.unix total
> 1 104 231 341
> 2 68 218 289
> 3 66 205 275
>
>
> Any comments are welcome. :)
>

Very impressive. Now to review the patches (will take me some time).

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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-29 12:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans