[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <288dbef70707250455p656b09cft20ebc7a013e8a76f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:55:21 +0800
From: "Shaohua Li" <shaoh.li@...il.com>
To: "Avi Kivity" <avi@...ranet.com>
Cc: kvm-devel <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC 7/8]KVM: swap out guest pages
2007/7/24, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>:
> Shaohua Li wrote:
> > Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped out.
> >
> > One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
> > if one module changes field of the inode, other moduels might break.
> > Should we introduce a new API to not share inode?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
> > ---
> >
> > +static int kvm_set_page_dirty(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > + if (!PageDirty(page))
> > + SetPageDirty(page);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int kvm_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > +{
> > + struct address_space *mapping = page->mapping;
> > + struct kvm *kvm = address_space_to_kvm(mapping);
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * gfn_to_page is called with kvm->lock hold, which might invoke page
> > + * reclaim. So the .writepage should check if we already hold the lock
> > + * to avoid deadlock.
> > + */
> > + if (!mutex_trylock(&kvm->lock)) {
> > + set_page_dirty(page);
> > + return AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We just zap vcpu 0's page table. For a SMP guest, we should zap all
> > + * vcpus'. It's better shadow page table is per-vm.
> > + */
> > + if (PagePrivate(page))
> > + kvm_mmu_zap_pagetbl(&kvm->vcpus[0], page->index);
> > +
> > + ret = kvm_move_to_swap(page);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + set_page_dirty(page);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + unlock_page(page);
> > +out:
> > + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >
>
> Perhaps we can use this as a base for userspace-allocated memory. We
> still have a kvm inode and address_space; but instead of calling
> kvm_move_to_swap(), we use the memory slot and virtual address offset to
> locate the underlying address_space and call that ->writepage().
>
> So:
> kvm_writepage() removes any shadow page table references
> the underlying ->writepage() does the work of paging to the underlying
> store
So write to a file, right? Yes, it can avoid use move to swap, and
should be feasible.
> We need to figure out how to avoid the underlying ->writepage() from not
> within the context of kvm_writepage(). Maybe have a page flag
> signifying layered address spaces?
>
> [it probably violates fifteen different mm assumptions; I need to study
> that code]
>
> An alternative would be to have kvm set a page flag signifying it has
> references to the page when it installs it in a shadow pte. The mm
> would notice the flag and call kvm to clear it below proceeding with
> normal ->writepage().
This page_private flag's job, I think.
Thanks,
Shaohua
-
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