[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120410204031.ffb5b976225ac9fe6dae474e@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:40:31 +0900
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] KVM: MMU: fast page fault
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:39:14 +0300
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 10:46 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Perhaps the mmu_lock hold times by get_dirty are a large component here?
> > If that can be alleviated, not only RO->RW faults benefit.
> >
> >
>
> Currently the longest holder in normal use is probably reading the dirty
> log and write protecting the shadow page tables.
>
> We could fix that by switching to O(1) write protection
> (write-protecting PML4Es instead of PTEs). It would be interesting to
> combine O(1) write protection with lockless write-enabling.
>
As Marcelo suggested during reviewing srcu-less dirty logging, we can
mitigate the get_dirty's mmu_lock hold time problem cleanly, locally in
get_dirty_log(), by using cond_resched_lock() -- although we need to
introduce cond_rescheck_lock_cb() to conditionally flush TLB.
I have already started that work.
Actually I introduced rmap based get_dirty for that kind of fine-grained
contention control.
I think we should do our best not to affect mmu so much just for the
limited time of live migration.
Takuya
--
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