[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091102155410.GE27911@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:54:10 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] Handle asynchronous page fault in a PV guest.
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 02:38:30PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/01/2009 01:56 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >Asynchronous page fault notifies vcpu that page it is trying to access
> >is swapped out by a host. In response guest puts a task that caused the
> >fault to sleep until page is swapped in again. When missing page is
> >brought back into the memory guest is notified and task resumes execution.
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h
> >index 90708b7..61e2aa3 100644
> >--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h
> >+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h
> >@@ -52,6 +52,9 @@ struct kvm_mmu_op_release_pt {
> >
> > #define KVM_PV_SHM_FEATURES_ASYNC_PF (1<< 0)
> >
> >+#define KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_NP 1
> >+#define KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_READY 2
>
> _NOT_PRESENT would improve readability.
>
> >+static void apf_task_wait(struct task_struct *tsk, u64 token)
> > {
> >+ u64 key = hash_64(token, KVM_TASK_SLEEP_HASHBITS);
> >+ struct kvm_task_sleep_head *b =&async_pf_sleepers[key];
> >+ struct kvm_task_sleep_node n, *e;
> >+ DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> >+
> >+ spin_lock(&b->lock);
> >+ e = _find_apf_task(b, token);
> >+ if (e) {
> >+ /* dummy entry exist -> wake up was delivered ahead of PF */
> >+ hlist_del(&e->link);
> >+ kfree(e);
> >+ spin_unlock(&b->lock);
> >+ return;
> >+ }
> >+
> >+ n.token = token;
> >+ init_waitqueue_head(&n.wq);
> >+ hlist_add_head(&n.link,&b->list);
> >+ spin_unlock(&b->lock);
> >+
> >+ for (;;) {
> >+ prepare_to_wait(&n.wq,&wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> >+ if (hlist_unhashed(&n.link))
> >+ break;
>
> Don't you need locking here? At least for the implied memory barriers.
>
May be memory barrier will be enough. Will look at it.
> >+ schedule();
> >+ }
> >+ finish_wait(&n.wq,&wait);
> >+
> >+ return;
> >+}
> >+
> >+static void apf_task_wake(u64 token)
> >+{
> >+ u64 key = hash_64(token, KVM_TASK_SLEEP_HASHBITS);
> >+ struct kvm_task_sleep_head *b =&async_pf_sleepers[key];
> >+ struct kvm_task_sleep_node *n;
> >+
> >+ spin_lock(&b->lock);
> >+ n = _find_apf_task(b, token);
> >+ if (!n) {
> >+ /* PF was not yet handled. Add dummy entry for the token */
> >+ n = kmalloc(sizeof(*n), GFP_ATOMIC);
> >+ if (!n) {
> >+ printk(KERN_EMERG"async PF can't allocate memory\n");
>
> Worrying. We could have an emergency pool of one node per cpu, and
> disable apf if we use it until it's returned. But that's a lot of
> complexity for an edge case, so a simpler solution would be welcome.
>
Currently this code can't trigger since "wake up" is always sent on the
same vcpu as "not present", but I don't want this implementation detail
to be part of guest/host interface. Idea you've described can be easy
to implement. Will look into it.
> >+int kvm_handle_pf(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code)
> >+{
> >+ u64 reason, token;
> > struct kvm_vcpu_pv_shm *pv_shm =
> > per_cpu(kvm_vcpu_pv_shm, smp_processor_id());
> >
> > if (!pv_shm)
> >- return;
> >+ return 0;
> >+
> >+ reason = pv_shm->reason;
> >+ pv_shm->reason = 0;
> >+
> >+ token = pv_shm->param;
> >+
> >+ switch (reason) {
> >+ default:
> >+ return 0;
> >+ case KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_NP:
> >+ /* real page is missing. */
> >+ apf_task_wait(current, token);
> >+ break;
> >+ case KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_READY:
> >+ apf_task_wake(token);
> >+ break;
> >+ }
>
> Ah, reason is not a bitmask but an enumerator. __u32 is more
> friendly to i386 in that case.
>
OK. Will need padding for 64 bit host case.
> Much of the code here is arch independent and would work well on
> non-x86 kvm ports. But we can always lay the burden of moving it on
> the non-x86 maintainers.
>
> --
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
Gleb.
--
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