[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YW9vqgwU+/iVooXj@google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 10:23:54 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHV2 1/3] KVM: x86: introduce kvm_mmu_pte_prefetch structure
On (21/10/19 15:44), David Matlack wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 8:32 AM Sergey Senozhatsky
> <senozhatsky@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > kvm_mmu_pte_prefetch is a per-VCPU structure that holds a PTE
> > prefetch pages array, lock and the number of PTE to prefetch.
> >
> > This is needed to turn PTE_PREFETCH_NUM into a tunable VM
> > parameter.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 12 +++++++
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h | 4 +++
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 9 +++++-
> > 4 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 5271fce6cd65..11400bc3c70d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -607,6 +607,16 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_xen {
> > u64 runstate_times[4];
> > };
> >
> > +struct kvm_mmu_pte_prefetch {
> > + /*
> > + * This will be cast either to array of pointers to struct page,
> > + * or array of u64, or array of u32
> > + */
> > + void *ents;
> > + unsigned int num_ents;
> > + spinlock_t lock;
>
> The spinlock is overkill. I'd suggest something like this:
> - When VM-ioctl is invoked to update prefetch count, store it in
> kvm_arch. No synchronization with vCPUs needed.
> - When a vCPU takes a fault: Read the prefetch count from kvm_arch. If
> different than count at last fault, re-allocate vCPU prefetch array.
> (So you'll need to add prefetch array and count to kvm_vcpu_arch as
> well.)
>
> No extra locks are needed. vCPUs that fault after the VM-ioctl will
> get the new prefetch count. We don't really care if a prefetch count
> update races with a vCPU fault as long as vCPUs are careful to only
> read the count once (i.e. use READ_ONCE(vcpu->kvm.prefetch_count)) and
> use that. Assuming prefetch count ioctls are rare, the re-allocation
> on the fault path will be rare as well.
So reallocation from the faul-path should happen before vCPU takes the
mmu_lock? And READ_ONCE(prefetch_count) should also happen before vCPU
takes mmu_lock, I assume, so we need to pass it as a parameter to all
the functions that will access prefetch array.
> Note: You could apply this same approach to a module param, except
> vCPUs would be reading the module param rather than vcpu->kvm during
> each fault.
>
> And the other alternative, like you suggested in the other patch, is
> to use a vCPU ioctl. That would side-step the synchronization issue
> because vCPU ioctls require the vCPU mutex. So the reallocation could
> be done in the ioctl and not at fault time.
One more idea, wonder what do you think:
There is an upper limit on the number of PTEs we prefault, which is 128 as of
now, but I think 64 will be good enough, or maybe even 32. So we can always
allocate MAX_PTE_PREFETCH_NUM arrays in vcpu->arch and ioctl() will change
->num_ents only, which is always in (0, MAX_PTE_PREFETCH_NUM - 1] range. This
way we never have to reallocate anything, we just adjust the "maximum index"
value.
> Taking a step back, can you say a bit more about your usecase?
We are looking at various ways of reducing the number of vm-exits. There
is only one VM running on the device (a pretty low-end laptop).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists