mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
	avi.kivity@gmail.com,
	"pbonzini@redhat.com Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] KVM: MMU: log dirty page after marking spte writable
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:26:48 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ECBA1CAA-823A-4332-A35D-F0A64CD35C6A@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131120194727.GA3353@amt.cnet>


On Nov 21, 2013, at 3:47 AM, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:20:09PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>> But what guarantee does userspace require, from GET_DIRTY_LOG, while vcpus are
>>> executing? 
>> 
>> Aha. Single calling GET_DIRTY_LOG is useless since new dirty page can be generated
>> when GET_DIRTY_LOG is being returned. If user wants to get exact dirty pages the vcpus
>> should be stopped. 
>> 
>>> 
>>> With fast page fault:
>>> 
>>>     if (cmpxchg64(sptep, spte, spte | PT_WRITABLE_MASK) == spte)
>>>             /* The window in here... */
>>>             mark_page_dirty(vcpu->kvm, gfn);
>>> 
>>> And the $SUBJECT set_spte reordering, the rule becomes
>>> 
>>> A call to GET_DIRTY_LOG guarantees to return correct information about 
>>> dirty pages before invocation of the previous GET_DIRTY_LOG call.
>>> 
>>> (see example 1: the next GET_DIRTY_LOG will return the dirty information
>>> there).
>>> 
>> 
>> It seems no.
>> 
>> The first GET_DIRTY_LOG can happen before fast-page-fault,
>> the second GET_DIRTY_LOG happens in the window between cmpxchg()
>> and mark_page_dirty(), for the second one, the information is still “incorrect”.
> 
> Its correct for the previous GET_DIRTY_LOG call.

Oh, yes.

> 
>>> The rule for sptes that is, because kvm_write_guest does not match the
>>> documentation at all.
>> 
>> You mean the case of “kvm_write_guest” is valid (I do not know why it is)?
>> Or anything else?
>> 
>>> 
>>> So before example 1 and this patch, the rule (well for sptes at least) was
>>> 
>>> "Given a memory slot, return a bitmap containing any pages dirtied
>>> since the last call to this ioctl.  Bit 0 is the first page in the
>>> memory slot.  Ensure the entire structure is cleared to avoid padding
>>> issues."
>>> 
>>> Can you explain why it is OK to relax this rule?
>> 
>> It’s because:
>> 1) it doesn’t break current use cases, i.e. Live migration and FB-flushing.
>> 2) the current code, like kvm_write_guest  has already broken the documentation
>>   (the guest page has been written but missed in the dirty bitmap).
>> 3) it’s needless to implement a exact get-dirty-pages since the dirty pages can
>>   no be exactly got except stopping vcpus. 
>> 
>> So i think we'd document this case instead. No?
> 
> Lets figure out the requirements, then. I don't understand why
> FB-flushing is safe (think kvm-autotest: one pixel off the entire
> test fails).

I did not read FB-flushing code, i guess the reason why it can work is:
FB-flushing do periodicity get-dirty-page and flush it.  After guest writes
the page, the page will be flushed in the next GET_DIRTY_LOG.

> 
> Before fast page fault: Pages are either write protected or the
> corresponding dirty bitmap bit is set. Any write faults to dirty logged
> sptes while GET_DIRTY log is executing in the protected section are
> allowed to instantiate writeable spte after GET_DIRTY log is finished.
> 
> After fast page fault: Pages can be writeable and the dirty bitmap not
> set. Therefore data can be dirty before GET_DIRTY executes and still
> fail to be returned in the bitmap.

It’s right. The current GET_DIRTY fail to get the dirty page but the
next GET_DIRTY can get it properly since the current GET_DIRTY
need to flush all TLBs that waits for fast-page-fault finish.

I do not think it’s a big problem since single GET_DIRTY is useless as
i explained in the previous mail.

> 
> Since this patchset does not introduce change in behaviour (fast pf
> did), no reason to avoid merging this.

Yes, thank you, Marcelo! :)

> 
> BTW, since GET_DIRTY log does not require to report concurrent (to
> GET_DIRTY_LOG) write faults, it is not necessary to rewalk the spte
> list, is it?

You mean the “rewalk” we introduced in pte_list_walk_lockless() in this patchset?
I think this rewalk is needed because it’s caused by meet a unexpected nulls that
means we’re walking on the unexpected rmap. If we do not do this, some writable
sptes will be missed.





  reply	other threads:[~2013-11-21  4:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-30 13:01 [RFC PATCH 00/12] KVM: MMU: locklessly wirte-protect Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:01 ` [PATCH 01/12] KVM: MMU: remove unused parameter Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-29  7:22   ` Gleb Natapov
2013-07-30 13:02 ` [PATCH 02/12] KVM: MMU: properly check last spte in fast_page_fault() Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:02 ` [PATCH 03/12] KVM: MMU: lazily drop large spte Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-02 14:55   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-08-02 15:42     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-02 20:27       ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-08-02 22:56         ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:02 ` [PATCH 04/12] KVM: MMU: log dirty page after marking spte writable Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:26   ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-07-31  7:25     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-07  1:48   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-08-07  4:06     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-08 15:06       ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-08-08 16:26         ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-11-20  0:29       ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-11-20  0:35         ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-11-20 14:20         ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-11-20 19:47           ` Marcelo Tosatti
2013-11-21  4:26             ` Xiao Guangrong [this message]
2013-07-30 13:02 ` [PATCH 05/12] KVM: MMU: add spte into rmap before logging dirty page Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:27   ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-07-31  7:33     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:02 ` [PATCH 06/12] KVM: MMU: flush tlb if the spte can be locklessly modified Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-28  7:23   ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-28  7:50     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:02 ` [PATCH 07/12] KVM: MMU: redesign the algorithm of pte_list Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-28  8:12   ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-28  8:37     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-28  8:58       ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-28  9:19         ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:02 ` [PATCH 08/12] KVM: MMU: introduce nulls desc Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-28  8:40   ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-28  8:54     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:02 ` [PATCH 09/12] KVM: MMU: introduce pte-list lockless walker Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-28  9:20   ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-28  9:33     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-28  9:46       ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-28 10:13         ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-28 10:49           ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-28 12:15             ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-28 13:36               ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-29  6:50                 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-29  9:08                   ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-29  9:31                     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-29  9:51                       ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-29 11:26                         ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-30 11:38                           ` Gleb Natapov
2013-09-02  7:02                             ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-29  9:31                   ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-29 11:33                     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-29 12:02                       ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-30 11:44                         ` Gleb Natapov
2013-09-02  8:50                           ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:02 ` [PATCH 10/12] KVM: MMU: allow locklessly access shadow page table out of vcpu thread Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-07 13:09   ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2013-08-07 13:19     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-29  9:10   ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-29  9:25     ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:02 ` [PATCH 11/12] KVM: MMU: locklessly write-protect the page Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:02 ` [PATCH 12/12] KVM: MMU: clean up spte_write_protect Xiao Guangrong
2013-07-30 13:11 ` [RFC PATCH 00/12] KVM: MMU: locklessly wirte-protect Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-03  5:09 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2013-08-04 14:15   ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-29  7:16   ` Gleb Natapov
2013-08-06 13:16 ` Xiao Guangrong
2013-08-08 17:38   ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-08-09  4:51     ` Xiao Guangrong

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ECBA1CAA-823A-4332-A35D-F0A64CD35C6A@gmail.com \
    --to=xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com \
    --cc=avi.kivity@gmail.com \
    --cc=gleb@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®