2015-01-28 10:54+0800, Kai Huang:
> This patch adds new kvm_x86_ops dirty logging hooks to enable/disable dirty
> logging for particular memory slot, and to flush potentially logged dirty GPAs
> before reporting slot->dirty_bitmap to userspace.
>
> kvm x86 common code calls these hooks when they are available so PML logic can
> be hidden to VMX specific. Other ARCHs won't be impacted as these hooks are
> NULL
> for them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kai Huang <[email protected]>
> ---
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -802,6 +802,31 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops {
> +
> + /*
> + * Arch-specific dirty logging hooks. These hooks are only supposed to
> + * be valid if the specific arch has hardware-accelerated dirty logging
> + * mechanism. Currently only for PML on VMX.
> + *
> + * - slot_enable_log_dirty:
> + * called when enabling log dirty mode for the slot.
(I guess that "log dirty mode" isn't the meaning that people will think
after seeing 'log_dirty' ...
I'd at least change 'log_dirty' to 'dirty_log' in these names.)
> + * - slot_disable_log_dirty:
> + * called when disabling log dirty mode for the slot.
> + * also called when slot is created with log dirty disabled.
> + * - flush_log_dirty:
> + * called before reporting dirty_bitmap to userspace.
> + * - enable_log_dirty_pt_masked:
> + * called when reenabling log dirty for the GFNs in the mask after
> + * corresponding bits are cleared in slot->dirty_bitmap.
This name is very confusing ... I think we should hint that this is
called after we learn that the page has been written to and would like
to monitor it again.
Using something like collected/refresh? (I'd have to do horrible things
to come up with a good name, sorry.)
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -3780,6 +3780,12 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log(struct kvm *kvm, struct
> kvm_dirty_log *log)
>
> mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
>
> + /*
> + * Flush potentially hardware-cached dirty pages to dirty_bitmap.
> + */
> + if (kvm_x86_ops->flush_log_dirty)
> + kvm_x86_ops->flush_log_dirty(kvm);
(Flushing would make more sense in kvm_get_dirty_log_protect().)
> +
> r = kvm_get_dirty_log_protect(kvm, log, &is_dirty);
>
> /*
> @@ -7533,6 +7539,56 @@ int kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void kvm_mmu_slot_apply_flags(struct kvm *kvm,
> + struct kvm_memory_slot *new)
> +{
> + /* Still write protect RO slot */
> + if (new->flags & KVM_MEM_READONLY) {
> + kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(kvm, new);
We didn't write protect RO slots before, does this patch depend on it?
> @@ -7562,16 +7618,15 @@ void kvm_arch_commit_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> - if ((change != KVM_MR_DELETE) && (new->flags & KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES))
> - kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(kvm, new);
> + if (change != KVM_MR_DELETE)
> + kvm_mmu_slot_apply_flags(kvm, new);
--
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
