Re: Redoing eXclusive Page Frame Ownership (XPFO) with isolated CPUs in mind (for KVM to isolate its guests per CPU)

[Tycho Andersen]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:01:02PM +0200, Julian Stecklina wrote:
> Juerg Haefliger <juergh@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> >> I've updated my XPFO branch[1] to make some of the debugging optional
> >> and also integrated the XPFO bookkeeping with struct page, instead of
> >> requiring CONFIG_PAGE_EXTENSION, which removes some checks in the hot
> >> path.
> >
> > FWIW, that was my original design but there was some resistance to
> > adding more to the page struct and page extension was suggested
> > instead.
> 
> From looking at both versions, I have to say that having the metadata in
> struct page makes the code easier to understand and removes some special
> cases and bookkeeping.
> 
> > I'm wondering how much performance we're loosing by having to split
> > hugepages. Any chance this can be quantified somehow? Maybe we can
> > have a pool of some sorts reserved for userpages and group allocations
> > so that we can track the XPFO state at the hugepage level instead of
> > at the 4k level to prevent/reduce page splitting. Not sure if that
> > causes issues or has any unwanted side effects though...
> 
> Optimizing the allocation/deallocation path might be worthwhile, because
> that's where most of the overhead goes. I haven't looked into how to do
> this yet. I'd appreciate if someone has pointers to code that tries to
> achieve similar functionality to get me started.
> 
> That being said, I'm wondering whether we have unrealistic expectations
> about the overhead here and whether it's worth turning this patch into
> something far more complicated. Opinions?

I think that implementing Dave Hansen's suggestions of not doing
flushes/other work on every map/unmap, but only when pages are added
to the various free lists will probably help out a lot. That's where I
got stuck last time when I was trying to do it, though :)

Cheers,

Tycho