Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] KVM: MMU: fast path of handling guest page fault

[Xiao Guangrong]

On 05/05/2012 10:08 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:


>>
>> I am confused with ' _everywhere_ ', it means all of the path read/update
>> spte? why not only verify the path which depends on is_writable_pte()?
> 
> I meant any path that updates from present->present.
> 


OK, got it. So let us focus on mmu_spte_update() only. :)

>> For the reason of "its easy to verify that it is correct"? But these
>> paths are safe since it is not care PT_WRITABLE_MASK at all. What these
>> paths care is the Dirty-bit and Accessed-bit are not lost, that is why
>> we always treat the spte as "volatile" if it is can be updated out of
>> mmu-lock.
>>
>> For the further development? We can add the delta comment for
>> is_writable_pte() to warn the developer use it more carefully.
>>
>> It is also very hard to verify spte everywhere. :(
>>
>> Actually, the current code to care PT_WRITABLE_MASK is just for
>> tlb flush, may be we can fold it into mmu_spte_update.
>> [
>>   There are tree ways to modify spte, present -> nonpresent, nonpresent -> present,
>>   present -> present.
>>
>>   But we only need care present -> present for lockless.
>> ]
> 
> Also need to take memory ordering into account, which was not an issue
> before. So it is not only TLB flush.


It seems do not need explicit barrier, we always use atomic-xchg to update
spte, it has already guaranteed the memory ordering.

In mmu_spte_update():

/* the return value indicates wheater tlb need be flushed.*/
static bool mmu_spte_update(u64 *sptep, u64 new_spte)
{
	u64 old_spte = *sptep;
	bool flush = false;

	old_spte = xchg(sptep, new_spte);

	if (is_writable_pte(old_spte) && !is_writable_pte(spte) )
		flush = true;

	.....
}

> 
>> /*
>>  * return true means we need flush tlbs caused by changing spte from writeable
>>  * to read-only.
>>  */
>> bool mmu_update_spte(u64 *sptep, u64 spte)
>> {
>> 	u64 last_spte, old_spte = *sptep;
>> 	bool flush = false;
>>
>> 	last_spte = xchg(sptep, spte);
>>
>> 	if ((is_writable_pte(last_spte) ||
>> 	      spte_has_updated_lockless(old_spte, last_spte)) &&
>> 	         !is_writable_pte(spte) )
>> 		flush = true;
>>
>> 	.... track Drity/Accessed bit ...
>>
>>
>> 	return flush		
>> }
>>
>> Furthermore, the style of "if (spte-has-changed) goto beginning" is feasible
>> in set_spte since this path is a fast path. (i can speed up mmu_need_write_protect)
> 
> What you mean exactly?
> 
> It would be better if all these complications introduced by lockless
> updates can be avoided, say using A/D bits as Avi suggested.


Anyway, i do not object it if we have a better way to do these, but ......

--
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/