linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Alleviate mmu_lock hold time when we start dirty logging

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1356096270.3625.37.camel@ul30vt.home>
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:24:30 -0700
From:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
Cc:	Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa_takuya_b1@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Alleviate mmu_lock hold time when we start
 dirty logging

On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 10:54 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:02:50PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:55:43 -0700
> > Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Yes, the fix should work, but I do not want to update the
> > > > generation from outside of update_memslots().
> > > 
> > > Ok, then:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > index 87089dd..c7b5061 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > @@ -413,7 +413,8 @@ void kvm_exit(void);
> > >  
> > >  void kvm_get_kvm(struct kvm *kvm);
> > >  void kvm_put_kvm(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > -void update_memslots(struct kvm_memslots *slots, struct kvm_memory_slot *new);
> > > +void update_memslots(struct kvm_memslots *slots, struct kvm_memory_slot *new,
> > > +                     u64 last_generation);
> > >  
> > >  static inline struct kvm_memslots *kvm_memslots(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >  {
> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > index c4c8ec1..06961ea 100644
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > @@ -667,7 +667,8 @@ static void sort_memslots(struct kvm_memslots *slots)
> > >  		slots->id_to_index[slots->memslots[i].id] = i;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -void update_memslots(struct kvm_memslots *slots, struct kvm_memory_slot *new)
> > > +void update_memslots(struct kvm_memslots *slots, struct kvm_memory_slot *new,
> > > +                     u64 last_generation)
> > >  {
> > >  	if (new) {
> > >  		int id = new->id;
> > > @@ -679,7 +680,7 @@ void update_memslots(struct kvm_memslots *slots, struct kvm_memory_slot *new)
> > >  			sort_memslots(slots);
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	slots->generation++;
> > > +	slots->generation = last_generation + 1;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static int check_memory_region_flags(struct kvm_userspace_memory_region *mem)
> > > @@ -814,7 +815,7 @@ int __kvm_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> > >  		slot = id_to_memslot(slots, mem->slot);
> > >  		slot->flags |= KVM_MEMSLOT_INVALID;
> > >  
> > > -		update_memslots(slots, NULL);
> > > +		update_memslots(slots, NULL, kvm->memslots->generation);
> > >  
> > >  		old_memslots = kvm->memslots;
> > >  		rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots, slots);
> > > @@ -862,7 +863,7 @@ int __kvm_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> > >  		memset(&new.arch, 0, sizeof(new.arch));
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	update_memslots(slots, &new);
> > > +	update_memslots(slots, &new, kvm->memslots->generation);
> > >  	old_memslots = kvm->memslots;
> > >  	rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots, slots);
> > >  	synchronize_srcu_expedited(&kvm->srcu);
> > > 
> > > > > The original patch can be reverted, there are no following dependencies,
> > > > > but the idea was that we're making the memslot array larger, so there
> > > > > could be more pressure in allocating it, so let's not trivially do extra
> > > > > frees and allocs.  Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > I agree that the current set_memory_region() is not good for frequent updates.
> > > > But the alloc/free is not a major factor at the moment: flushing shadows should
> > > > be more problematic.
> > > 
> > > I don't understand why we'd throw away even a minor optimization that's
> > > so easy to fix.  We're not only removing a free/alloc, but we're being
> > > more friendly to the cache by avoiding the extra memcpy.  The above also
> > > makes the generation management a bit more explicit.  Thanks,
> > 
> > Looks good to me!
> > 
> Me too.
> 
> > I just wanted to keep the code readable, so no reason to object to
> > a clean solution.  Any chance to see the fix on kvm.git soon?
> > 
> Soon after Alex will send proper patch with Signed-off-by.

I'll test and do that first thing today, thanks,

Alex

--
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/