[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100218161637.GP22141@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:16:37 +0100
From: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] KVM: SVM: Don't use kmap_atomic in nested_svm_map
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 03:40:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/18/2010 01:38 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >Use of kmap_atomic disables preemption but if we run in
> >shadow-shadow mode the vmrun emulation executes kvm_set_cr3
> >which might sleep or fault. So use kmap instead for
> >nested_svm_map.
> >
> >
> >
> >-static void nested_svm_unmap(void *addr, enum km_type idx)
> >+static void nested_svm_unmap(void *addr)
> > {
> > struct page *page;
> >
> >@@ -1443,7 +1443,7 @@ static void nested_svm_unmap(void *addr, enum km_type idx)
> >
> > page = kmap_atomic_to_page(addr);
> >
> >- kunmap_atomic(addr, idx);
> >+ kunmap(addr);
> > kvm_release_page_dirty(page);
> > }
>
> kunmap() takes a struct page *, not the virtual address (a
> consistent source of bugs).
Ah true, thanks. I'll fix that.
> kmap() is generally an unloved interface, it is slow and possibly
> deadlock prone, but it's better than sleeping in atomic context. If
> you can hack your way around it, that is preferred.
Best would be to use kvm_read_guest, but I fear that this will have an
performance impact. Maybe I'll try this and measure if it really has a
significant performance impact.
Joerg
--
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