linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 9/9] make kvm mmu shrinker more aggressive

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:24:00 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 9/9] make kvm mmu shrinker more aggressive

On 06/15/2010 04:55 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> In a previous patch, we removed the 'nr_to_scan' tracking.
> It was not being used to track the number of objects
> scanned, so we stopped using it entirely.  Here, we
> strart using it again.
>
> The theory here is simple; if we already have the refcount
> and the kvm->mmu_lock, then we should do as much work as
> possible under the lock.  The downside is that we're less
> fair about the KVM instances from which we reclaim.  Each
> call to mmu_shrink() will tend to "pick on" one instance,
> after which it gets moved to the end of the list and left
> alone for a while.
>    

That also increases the latency hit, as well as a potential fault storm, 
on that instance.  Spreading out is less efficient, but smoother.

> If mmu_shrink() has already done a significant amount of
> scanning, the use of 'nr_to_scan' inside shrink_kvm_mmu()
> will also ensure that we do not over-reclaim when we have
> already done a lot of work in this call.
>
> In the end, this patch defines a "scan" as:
> 1. An attempt to acquire a refcount on a 'struct kvm'
> 2. freeing a kvm mmu page
>
> This would probably be most ideal if we can expose some
> of the work done by kvm_mmu_remove_some_alloc_mmu_pages()
> as also counting as scanning, but I think we have churned
> enough for the moment.
>    

It usually removes one page.

> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen<dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>
>   linux-2.6.git-dave/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c |   11 ++++++-----
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff -puN arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c~make-shrinker-more-aggressive arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> --- linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c~make-shrinker-more-aggressive	2010-06-14 11:30:44.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.git-dave/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c	2010-06-14 11:38:04.000000000 -0700
> @@ -2935,8 +2935,10 @@ static int shrink_kvm_mmu(struct kvm *kv
>
>   	idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
>   	spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> -	if (kvm->arch.n_used_mmu_pages>  0)
> -		freed_pages = kvm_mmu_remove_some_alloc_mmu_pages(kvm);
> +	while (nr_to_scan>  0&&  kvm->arch.n_used_mmu_pages>  0) {
> +		freed_pages += kvm_mmu_remove_some_alloc_mmu_pages(kvm);
> +		nr_to_scan--;
> +	}
>    

What tree are you patching?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

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