Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] KVM: MMU: fast invalid all shadow pages

[Xiao Guangrong]

On 05/07/2013 04:58 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 01:45:52AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 05/07/2013 01:24 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:10:11PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2013 08:36 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Step 1) Fix kvm_mmu_zap_all's behaviour: introduce lockbreak via
>>>>>>> spin_needbreak. Use generation numbers so that in case kvm_mmu_zap_all 
>>>>>>> releases mmu_lock and reacquires it again, only shadow pages 
>>>>>>> from the generation with which kvm_mmu_zap_all started are zapped (this
>>>>>>> guarantees forward progress and eventual termination).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kvm_mmu_zap_generation()
>>>>>>> 	spin_lock(mmu_lock)
>>>>>>> 	int generation = kvm->arch.mmu_generation;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 	for_each_shadow_page(sp) {
>>>>>>> 		if (sp->generation == kvm->arch.mmu_generation)
>>>>>>> 			zap_page(sp)
>>>>>>> 		if (spin_needbreak(mmu_lock)) {
>>>>>>> 			kvm->arch.mmu_generation++;
>>>>>>> 			cond_resched_lock(mmu_lock);
>>>>>>> 		}
>>>>>>> 	}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kvm_mmu_zap_all()
>>>>>>> 	spin_lock(mmu_lock)
>>>>>>> 	for_each_shadow_page(sp) {
>>>>>>> 		if (spin_needbreak(mmu_lock)) {
>>>>>>> 			cond_resched_lock(mmu_lock);
>>>>>>> 		}
>>>>>>> 	}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Use kvm_mmu_zap_generation for kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot.
>>>>>>> Use kvm_mmu_zap_all for kvm_mmu_notifier_release,kvm_destroy_vm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This addresses the main problem: excessively long hold times 
>>>>>>> of kvm_mmu_zap_all with very large guests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you see any problem with this logic? This was what i was thinking 
>>>>>>> we agreed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. I understand it and it can work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, it is similar with Gleb's idea that "zapping stale shadow pages
>>>>>> (and uses lock break technique)", after some discussion, we thought "only zap
>>>>>> shadow pages that are reachable from the slot's rmap" is better, that is this
>>>>>> patchset does.
>>>>>> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/23/73)
>>>>>>
>>>>> But this is not what the patch is doing. Close, but not the same :)
>>>>
>>>> Okay. :)
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of zapping shadow pages reachable from slot's rmap the patch
>>>>> does kvm_unmap_rmapp() which drop all spte without zapping shadow pages.
>>>>> That is why you need special code to re-init lpage_info. What I proposed
>>>>> was to call zap_page() on all shadow pages reachable from rmap. This
>>>>> will take care of lpage_info counters. Does this make sense?
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, no! We still need to care lpage_info. lpage_info is used
>>>> to count the number of guest page tables in the memslot.
>>>>
>>>> For example, there is a memslot:
>>>> memslot[0].based_gfn = 0, memslot[0].npages = 100,
>>>>
>>>> and there is a shadow page:
>>>> sp->role.direct =0, sp->role.level = 4, sp->gfn = 10.
>>>>
>>>> this sp is counted in the memslot[0] but it can not be found by walking
>>>> memslot[0]->rmap since there is no last mapping in this shadow page.
>>>>
>>> Right, so what about walking mmu_page_hash for each gfn belonging to the
>>> slot that is in process to be removed to find those?
>>
>> That will cost lots of time. The size of hashtable is 1 << 10. If the
>> memslot has 4M memory, it will walk all the entries, the cost is the same
>> as walking active_list (maybe litter more). And a memslot has 4M memory is
>> the normal case i think.
>>
> Memslots will be much bigger with memory hotplug. Lock break should be
> used while walking mmu_page_hash obviously, but still iterating over
> entire memslot gfn space to find a few gfn that may be there is
> suboptimal. We can keep a list of them in the memslot itself.

It sounds good to me.

BTW, this approach looks more complex and use more memory (new list_head
added into every shadow page) used, why you dislike clearing lpage_info? ;)

> 
>> Another point is that lpage_info stops mmu to use large page. If we
>> do not reset lpage_info, mmu is using 4K page until the invalid-sp is
>> zapped.
>>
> I do not think this is a big issue. If lpage_info prevented the use of
> large pages for some memory ranges before we zapped entire shadow pages
> it was probably for a reason, so new shadow page will prevent large
> pages from been created for the same memory ranges.

Still worried, but I will try it if Marcelo does not have objects.
Thanks a lot for your valuable suggestion, Gleb!

Now, i am trying my best to catch Marcelo's idea of "zapping root
pages", 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/