On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 07:59:24PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> >Joerg Rodel wrote:
> >>>Meanwhile, I applied the patch, but I'm very worried about this.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yes, we are also worried. Another question is why this only happens with
> >>NPT. The SoftMMU code should also fail with shadow paging if there is a
> >>bug.
> >>
> >
> >Slightly different paths -- direct_map vs page_fault. Also, with npt, all
> >cpus will access the same pte
> >that's being modified; without npt, faults on the same page will result in
> >different ptes being instantiated,
> >as each access will be from a different guest pte.
> >
> >Maybe we should turn on the dirty bit in the instantiated ptes -- that will
> >reduce the processor's mucking
> >about with them.
> >
>
> I meant the accessed bit. The dirty bit is always set, but the accessed bit
> it not, due to a bug. Fixing it
> doesn't help, though.
I did a bit meditation about the softmmu code today. In the path of the
NPT fault the function kvm_mmu_free_some_pages() is called which itself
calls kvm_mmu_zap_page(). There the two functions
kvm_mmu_page_unlink_children() and kvm_mmu_unlink_parents() are called.
They both call mmu_page_remove_parent_pte() which modifies ptes. But
only the first function, kvm_mmu_page_unlink_children(), flushes remote
TLBs. The function kvm_mmu_unlink_parents() does not. Is this correct?
If yes, why?
Joerg
--
| AMD Saxony Limited Liability Company & Co. KG
Operating | Wilschdorfer Landstr. 101, 01109 Dresden, Germany
System | Register Court Dresden: HRA 4896
Research | General Partner authorized to represent:
Center | AMD Saxony LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, US)
| General Manager of AMD Saxony LLC: Dr. Hans-R. Deppe, Thomas McCoy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
