On 05/27/2014 01:19 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:27:31AM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>> This patch adds support for handling 2nd stage page faults during migration,
>> it disables faulting in huge pages, and splits up existing huge pages.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mario Smarduch <m.smard...@samsung.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>> index b939312..10e7bf6 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>> @@ -1002,6 +1002,7 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>> struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *memcache = &vcpu->arch.mmu_page_cache;
>> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>> pfn_t pfn;
>> + bool migration_active;
>>
>> write_fault = kvm_is_write_fault(kvm_vcpu_get_hsr(vcpu));
>> if (fault_status == FSC_PERM && !write_fault) {
>> @@ -1053,12 +1054,23 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>> return -EFAULT;
>>
>> spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Place inside lock to prevent race condition when whole VM is being
>> + * write proteced. Prevent race of huge page install when migration is
>> + * active.
>> + */
>> + migration_active = vcpu->kvm->arch.migration_in_progress;
>> +
>> if (mmu_notifier_retry(kvm, mmu_seq))
>> goto out_unlock;
>> - if (!hugetlb && !force_pte)
>> +
>> + /* When migrating don't spend cycles coalescing huge pages */
>> + if (!hugetlb && !force_pte && !migration_active)
>> hugetlb = transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa);
>>
>> - if (hugetlb) {
>> + /* During migration don't install huge pages */
>
> again, all this is not about migration per se, it's about when logging
> dirty pages, (which may be commonly used for migration).
>
Yes that's true , I'll update but until recently (new RFC on qemu list) where
dirty logging is used for getting VM RSS or hot memory regions, I don't see any
other use case.
>> + if (hugetlb && !migration_active) {
>> pmd_t new_pmd = pfn_pmd(pfn, PAGE_S2);
>> new_pmd = pmd_mkhuge(new_pmd);
>> if (writable) {
>> @@ -1069,6 +1081,23 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>> ret = stage2_set_pmd_huge(kvm, memcache, fault_ipa, &new_pmd);
>> } else {
>> pte_t new_pte = pfn_pte(pfn, PAGE_S2);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If pmd is mapping a huge page then split it up into
>> + * small pages, when doing live migration.
>> + */
>> + if (migration_active) {
>> + pmd_t *pmd;
>> + if (hugetlb) {
>> + pfn += pte_index(fault_ipa);
>> + gfn = fault_ipa >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> + }
>
> how can you have hugetlb when we entered this else-clause conditional on
> having !hugetlb?
>
- if(hugetlb && !migration_active)
forces all page faults to enter here while in migration. Huge page entries
are cleared and stage2_set_pte() splits the huge page, and installs the pte
for the fault_ipa. I placed that there since it flows with installing
a pte as well as splitting a huge page. But your comment on performance
split up huge page vs. deferred page faulting should move it out of here.
>> + new_pte = pfn_pte(pfn, PAGE_S2);
>> + pmd = stage2_get_pmd(kvm, NULL, fault_ipa);
>> + if (pmd && kvm_pmd_huge(*pmd))
>> + clear_pmd_entry(kvm, pmd, fault_ipa);
>
> If we have a huge pmd entry, how did we take a fault on there? Would
> that be if a different CPU inserted a huge page entry since we got here,
> is this what you're trying to handle?
>
> I'm confused.
>
I thing this related to the above.
>> + }
>> +
>> if (writable) {
>> kvm_set_s2pte_writable(&new_pte);
>> kvm_set_pfn_dirty(pfn);
>> @@ -1077,6 +1106,9 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>> ret = stage2_set_pte(kvm, memcache, fault_ipa, &new_pte, false);
>> }
>>
>> + /* Assuming 4k pages, set one bit/page in memslot dirty_bitmap[] */
>
> Assuming? this makes me nervous. The point is probably that it's
> harmless if we're not logging dirty pages, because then nobody reads teh
> data structure, and if we are logging, then we are mapping everything
> using 4K pages?
>
> It's probably clearer code-wise to condition this on whether or not we
> are logging dirty page, and the branch is also likely to be much faster
> than the function call to mark_page_dirty.
>
I'm not sure I get the point. The call is always safe, you either
have old copy or new copy of memory slot with dirty_bitmap set or not set.
The log read is done while holding kvm slots_lock.
Is the comment related to performance, not supporting multiple page sizes,
or it's unsafe to call mark_page_dirty() under all circumstances, or
something else?
>> + if (writable)
>> + mark_page_dirty(kvm, gfn);
>>
>> out_unlock:
>> spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>
> -Christoffer
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
