Re: Populating multiple ptes at fault time

[Avi Kivity]

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
> > > Do you need to set the A bit synchronously?  
> > >       
> > Yes, of course (if no guest cooperation).
> >     
>
> Is the A bit architecturally guaranteed to be synchronously set?  

I believe so.  The cpu won't cache tlb entries with the A bit clear 
(much like the shadow code), and will rmw the pte on first access.

> Can
> speculative accesses set it?  

Yes, but don't abuse this.

> > If we add an async mode for guests that can cope, maybe this is
> > workable.  I guess this is what you're suggesting.
> >
> >     
>
> Yes.  At worst Linux would underestimate the process RSS a bit
> (depending on how many unsynchronized ptes you leave lying around).  I
>   

Not the RSS (that's pte.present pages) but the working set (aka active 
list).

> bet there's an appropriate pvop hook you could use to force
> synchronization just before the kernel actually inspects the bits
> (leaving lazy mode sounds good).
>   

It would have to be a new lazy mode, not the existing one, I think.

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

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