linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] KVM: MMU: fast path of handling guest page fault

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 03 May 2012 20:23:18 +0800
From:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
CC:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] KVM: MMU: fast path of handling guest page fault

On 05/03/2012 08:15 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:

> On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:39:51 +0800
> Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Was the problem really mmu_lock contention?
> 
>> Takuya, i am so tired to argue the advantage of lockless write-protect
>> and lockless O(1) dirty-log again and again.
> 
> You are missing my point.  Please do not take my comments as an objection
> to your whole work: whey do you feel so?
> 


Takuya, i am sorry, please forgive my rudeness! Since my English is
so poor that it is easy for me to misunderstand the mail.　:(

> I thought that your new fast-page-fault path was fast and optimized
> the guest during dirty logging.
> 
> So in this v4, you might get a similar result even before dropping
> mmu_lock, without 07/10?, if the problem Marcelo explained was not there.
> 


Actually, the improvement is larger than v2/v3 if ept is enabled, but
it is lower for ept disabled. This is because the fask-fask (rmap.WRITABLE bit)
is dropped for better review.

> 
> Of course there is a problem of mmu_lock contention.  What I am suggesting
> is to split that problem and do measurement separately so that part of
> your work can be merged soon.
> 
> Your guest size and workload was small to make get_dirty hold mmu_lock
> long time.  If you want to appeal the real value of lock-less, you need to
> do another measurment.
> 
> 
> But this is your work and it's up to you.  Although I was thinking to help
> your measurement, I cannot do that knowing the fact that you would not
> welcome my help.
> 


Of course, any measurement is appreciative!

> 
>>> Although I am not certain about what will be really needed in the
>>> final form, if this kind of maybe-needed-overhead is going to be
>>> added little by little, I worry about possible regression.
> 
>> Well, will you suggest Linus to reject all patches and stop
>> all discussion for the "possible regression" reason?
> 
> My concern was for Marcelo's examples, not your current implementation.
> If you can show explicitely what will be needed in the final form,
> I do not have any concern.
> 
> 
> Sorry for disturbing.


Sorry again.

--
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/