[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130523061818.GC26157@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:18:18 +0300
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: avi.kivity@...il.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 09/11] KVM: MMU: introduce
kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_obsolete_page
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:13:06PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 05/23/2013 01:57 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:55:58AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> It is only used to zap the obsolete page. Since the obsolete page
> >> will not be used, we need not spend time to find its unsync children
> >> out. Also, we delete the page from shadow page cache so that the page
> >> is completely isolated after call this function.
> >>
> >> The later patch will use it to collapse tlb flushes
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> 1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> index 9b57faa..e676356 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> >> @@ -1466,7 +1466,7 @@ static inline void kvm_mod_used_mmu_pages(struct kvm *kvm, int nr)
> >> static void kvm_mmu_free_page(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
> >> {
> >> ASSERT(is_empty_shadow_page(sp->spt));
> >> - hlist_del(&sp->hash_link);
> >> + hlist_del_init(&sp->hash_link);
> > Why do you need hlist_del_init() here? Why not move it into
>
> Since the hlist will be double freed. We will it like this:
>
> kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_obsolete_page(page, list);
> kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page(list);
> kvm_mmu_free_page(page);
>
> The first place is kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_obsolete_page(page), which have
> deleted the hash list.
>
> > kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page() like we discussed it here:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2580351/ instead of doing
> > it differently for obsolete and non obsolete pages?
>
> It is can break the hash-list walking: we should rescan the
> hash list once the page is prepared-ly zapped.
>
> I mentioned it in the changelog:
>
> 4): drop the patch which deleted page from hash list at the "prepare"
> time since it can break the walk based on hash list.
Can you elaborate on how this can happen?
--
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