[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 23:44:50 +0900
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [test result] dirty logging without srcu update -- Re:
[RFC][PATCH] srcu: Implement call_srcu()
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> > I have one concern about correctness issue though:
> >
> > concurrent rmap write protection may not be safe due to
> > delayed tlb flush ... cannot happen?
>
> What do you mean by concurrent rmap write protection?
>
Not sure, but other codes like:
- mmu_sync_children()
for_each_sp(pages, sp, parents, i)
protected |= rmap_write_protect(vcpu->kvm, sp->gfn);
if (protected)
kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
- kvm_mmu_get_page()
if (rmap_write_protect(vcpu->kvm, gfn))
kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
I just wondered what can happen if GET_DIRTY_LOG is being processed
behind these processing?
They may find nothing to write protect and won't do kvm_flush_remote_tlbs()
if the gfn has been already protected by GET_DIRTY_LOG.
But GET_DIRTY_LOG may still be busy write protecting other pages and
others can return before. (My code releases mmu_lock to not include
__put_user() in the critical section.)
I am not still enough familier with these code yet.
(maybe empty concern)
Takuya
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists