[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130829071606.GY22899@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:16:06 +0300
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
Cc: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
avi.kivity@...il.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] KVM: MMU: locklessly wirte-protect
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 02:09:43PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:01:58 +0800
> Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Background
> > ==========
> > Currently, when mark memslot dirty logged or get dirty page, we need to
> > write-protect large guest memory, it is the heavy work, especially, we need to
> > hold mmu-lock which is also required by vcpu to fix its page table fault and
> > mmu-notifier when host page is being changed. In the extreme cpu / memory used
> > guest, it becomes a scalability issue.
> >
> > This patchset introduces a way to locklessly write-protect guest memory.
>
> Nice improvements!
>
> If I read the patch set correctly, this work contains the following changes:
>
> Cleanups:
> Patch 1 and patch 12.
>
Yes, do not see the reason to not apply 1 straightaway. 12 depends on
other patches though.
> Lazy large page dropping for dirty logging:
> Patch 2-3.
> Patch 2 is preparatory to patch 3.
>
> This does not look like an RFC if you address Marcelo's comment.
> Any reason to include this in an RFC patch set?
Agree, you can post them separately for faster inclusion.
>
> Making remote TLBs flushable outside of mmu_lock for dirty logging:
> Patch 6.
>
> This is nice. I'm locally using a similar patch for my work, but yours
> is much cleaner and better. I hope this will get merged soon.
>
But without other patches this patch itself doesn't do much, no?
> New Pte-list handling:
> Patch 7-9.
>
> Still reading the details.
>
> RCU-based lockless write protection.
> Patch 10-11.
>
> If I understand RCU correctly, the current implementation has a problem:
> read-side critical sections can become too long.
>
> See the following LWN's article:
> "Sleepable RCU"
> https://lwn.net/Articles/202847/
>
> Especially, kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access() can take hundreds of
> milliseconds, or even a few seconds for guests using shadow paging.
> Is it possible to break the read-side critical section after protecting
> some pages? -- I guess so.
>
> Anyway, I want to see the following non-RFC quality patches get merged first:
> - Lazy large page dropping for dirty logging:
> - Making remote TLBs flushable outside of mmu_lock for dirty logging
>
> As you are doing in patch 11, the latter can eliminate the TLB flushes before
> cond_resched_lock(). So this alone is an optimization, and since my work is
> based on this TLB flush-less lock breaking, I would appriciate if you make this
> change first in your clean way.
>
> The remaining patches, pte-list refactoring and lock-less ones, also look
> interesting, but I need to read more to understand them.
>
> Thanks for the nice work!
Indeed. FWIW I completed the review and am waiting for a new version.
--
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