lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/6] x86: hv: hv_init.c: Replace alloc_page() with kmem_cache_alloc()
Date
Maya Nakamura <m.maya.nakamura@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 01:31:02PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Maya Nakamura <m.maya.nakamura@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > @@ -98,18 +99,20 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hyperv_pcpu_input_arg);
>> > u32 hv_max_vp_index;
>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hv_max_vp_index);
>> >
>> > +struct kmem_cache *cachep;
>> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cachep);
>> > +
>> > static int hv_cpu_init(unsigned int cpu)
>> > {
>> > u64 msr_vp_index;
>> > struct hv_vp_assist_page **hvp = &hv_vp_assist_page[smp_processor_id()];
>> > void **input_arg;
>> > - struct page *pg;
>> >
>> > input_arg = (void **)this_cpu_ptr(hyperv_pcpu_input_arg);
>> > - pg = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL);
>> > - if (unlikely(!pg))
>> > + *input_arg = kmem_cache_alloc(cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>> I'm not sure use of kmem_cache is justified here: pages we allocate are
>> not cache-line and all these allocations are supposed to persist for the
>> lifetime of the guest. In case you think that even on x86 it will be
>> possible to see PAGE_SIZE != HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE you can use alloc_pages()
>> instead.
>>
> Thank you for your feedback, Vitaly!
>
> Will you please tell me how cache-line relates to kmem_cache?
>
> I understand that alloc_pages() would work when PAGE_SIZE <=
> HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE, but I think that it would not work if PAGE_SIZE >
> HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE.

Sorry, my bad: I meant to say "not cache-like" (these allocations are
not 'cache') but the typo made it completely incomprehensible.

>
>> Also, in case the idea is to generalize stuff, what will happen if
>> PAGE_SIZE > HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE? Who will guarantee proper alignment?
>>
>> I think we can leave hypercall arguments, vp_assist and similar pages
>> alone for now: the code is not going to be shared among architectures
>> anyways.
>>
> About the alignment, kmem_cache_create() aligns memory with its third
> parameter, offset.

Yes, I know, I was trying to think about a (hypothetical) situation when
page sizes differ: what would be the memory alignment requirements from
the hypervisor for e.g. hypercall arguments? In case it's always
HV_HYP_PAGE_SIZE we're good but could it be PAGE_SIZE (for e.g. TLB
flush hypercall)? I don't know. For x86 this discussion probably makes
no sense. I'm, however, struggling to understand what benefit we will
get from the change. Maybe just leave it as-is for now and fix
arch-independent code only? And later, if we decide to generalize this
code, make another approach? (Not insisting, just a suggestion)

>
>> > @@ -338,7 +349,10 @@ void __init hyperv_init(void)
>> > guest_id = generate_guest_id(0, LINUX_VERSION_CODE, 0);
>> > wrmsrl(HV_X64_MSR_GUEST_OS_ID, guest_id);
>> >
>> > - hv_hypercall_pg = __vmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL, PAGE_KERNEL_RX);
>> > + hv_hypercall_pg = kmem_cache_alloc(cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
>> > + if (hv_hypercall_pg)
>> > + set_memory_x((unsigned long)hv_hypercall_pg, 1);
>>
>> _RX is not writeable, right?
>>
> Yes, you are correct. I should use set_memory_ro() in addition to
> set_memory_x().
>
>> > @@ -416,6 +431,7 @@ void hyperv_cleanup(void)
>> > * let hypercall operations fail safely rather than
>> > * panic the kernel for using invalid hypercall page
>> > */
>> > + kmem_cache_free(cachep, hv_hypercall_pg);
>>
>> Please don't do that: hyperv_cleanup() is called on kexec/kdump and
>> we're trying to do the bare minimum to allow next kernel to boot. Doing
>> excessive work here will likely lead to consequent problems (we're
>> already crashing the case it's kdump!).
>>
> Thank you for the explanation! I will remove that.
>

--
Vitaly

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-12 09:53    [W:0.342 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site