[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E01D0E3.9080508@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:24:19 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Izik Eidus <izik.eidus@...ellosystems.com>
CC: nai.xia@...il.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmu_notifier, kvm: Introduce dirty bit tracking in spte
and mmu notifier to help KSM dirty bit tracking
On 06/22/2011 02:19 PM, Izik Eidus wrote:
> On 6/22/2011 2:10 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 06/22/2011 02:05 PM, Izik Eidus wrote:
>>>>> + spte = rmap_next(kvm, rmapp, NULL);
>>>>> + while (spte) {
>>>>> + int _dirty;
>>>>> + u64 _spte = *spte;
>>>>> + BUG_ON(!(_spte& PT_PRESENT_MASK));
>>>>> + _dirty = _spte& PT_DIRTY_MASK;
>>>>> + if (_dirty) {
>>>>> + dirty = 1;
>>>>> + clear_bit(PT_DIRTY_SHIFT, (unsigned long *)spte);
>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> Racy. Also, needs a tlb flush eventually.
>>> +
>>>
>>> Hi, one of the issues is that the whole point of this patch is not
>>> do tlb flush eventually,
>>> But I see your point, because other users will not expect such
>>> behavior, so maybe there is need into a parameter
>>> flush_tlb=?, or add another mmu notifier call?
>>>
>>
>> If you don't flush the tlb, a subsequent write will not see that
>> spte.d is clear and the write will happen. So you'll see the page as
>> clean even though it's dirty. That's not acceptable.
>>
>
> Yes, but this is exactly what we want from this use case:
> Right now ksm calculate the page hash to see if it was changed, the
> idea behind this patch is to use the dirty bit instead,
> however the guest might not really like the fact that we will flush
> its tlb over and over again, specially in periodically scan like ksm
> does.
I see.
>
> So what we say here is: it is better to have little junk in the
> unstable tree that get flushed eventualy anyway, instead of make the
> guest slower....
> this race is something that does not reflect accurate of ksm anyway
> due to the full memcmp that we will eventualy perform...
>
> Ofcurse we trust that in most cases, beacuse it take ksm to get into a
> random virtual address in real systems few minutes, there will be
> already tlb flush performed.
>
> What you think about having 2 calls: one that does the expected
> behivor and does flush the tlb, and one that clearly say it doesnt
> flush the tlb
> and expline its use case for ksm?
Yes. And if the unstable/fast callback is not provided, have the common
code fall back to the stable/slow callback instead.
Or have a parameter that allows inaccurate results to be returned more
quickly.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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