On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 04:26:11PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Christian Ehrhardt <[email protected]>
>
> As requested this is a rebased patch on top of the already applied v3
> of the patch series.
>
> *updates to applied version*
> - ensure the wait_on_bit waiter is notified
> - ensure dropping vcpu all requests while freeing a vcpu
> - kickout only scheduled vcpus (its superfluous and wait might hang forever on
> not running vcpus)
> - kvm_arch_set_memory_region waits until the bit is consumed by the vcpu
>
> This patch relocates the variables kvm-s390 uses to track guest mem addr/size.
> As discussed dropping the variables at struct kvm_arch level allows to use the
> common vcpu->request based mechanism to reload guest memory if e.g. changes
> via set_memory_region.
> The kick mechanism introduced in this series is used to ensure running vcpus
> leave guest state to catch the update.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> [diffstat]
> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++-------
> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h | 7 +++++++
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 ++++
> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Index: kvm/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> ===================================================================
> --- kvm.orig/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ kvm/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -674,6 +674,12 @@ long kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl(struct file *fi
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> +static int wait_bit_schedule(void *word)
> +{
> + schedule();
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /* Section: memory related */
> int kvm_arch_set_memory_region(struct kvm *kvm,
> struct kvm_userspace_memory_region *mem,
> @@ -681,6 +687,7 @@ int kvm_arch_set_memory_region(struct kv
> int user_alloc)
> {
> int i;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>
> /* A few sanity checks. We can have exactly one memory slot which has
> to start at guest virtual zero and which has to be located at a
> @@ -706,13 +713,19 @@ int kvm_arch_set_memory_region(struct kv
>
> /* request update of sie control block for all available vcpus */
> for (i = 0; i < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; ++i) {
> - if (kvm->vcpus[i]) {
> - if (test_and_set_bit(KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD,
> - &kvm->vcpus[i]->requests))
> - continue;
> - kvm_s390_inject_sigp_stop(kvm->vcpus[i],
> - ACTION_VCPUREQUEST_ON_STOP);
> - }
> + vcpu = kvm->vcpus[i];
> + if (!vcpu)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (!test_and_set_bit(KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD, &vcpu->requests))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (vcpu->cpu == -1)
> + continue;
What happens if the check for cpu == -1 races with kvm_arch_vcpu_put?
This context will wait until the vcpu_put context is scheduled back in
to clear the bit? Is that OK?
> +
> + kvm_s390_inject_sigp_stop(vcpu, ACTION_VCPUREQUEST_ON_STOP);
> + wait_on_bit(&vcpu->requests, KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD,
> + wait_bit_schedule, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> }
void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
+ vcpu->cpu = -1;
save_fp_regs(&vcpu->arch.guest_fpregs);
save_access_regs(vcpu->arch.guest_acrs);
restore_fp_regs(&vcpu->arch.host_fpregs);
>
> return 0;
> Index: kvm/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h
> ===================================================================
> --- kvm.orig/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h
> +++ kvm/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h
> @@ -92,6 +92,13 @@ static inline unsigned long kvm_s390_han
> if (!vcpu->requests)
> return 0;
>
> + /* requests that can be handled at all levels */
> + if (test_and_clear_bit(KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD, &vcpu->requests)) {
> + smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
Really need that smp_mb__after_clear_bit ? AFAIK test_and_clear_bit
implies a barrier?
> + wake_up_bit(&vcpu->requests, KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD);
> + kvm_s390_vcpu_set_mem(vcpu);
> + }
> +
> return vcpu->requests;
> }
>
> Index: kvm/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> ===================================================================
> --- kvm.orig/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ kvm/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -1682,6 +1682,10 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_release(struct inode
> {
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = filp->private_data;
>
> + clear_bit(KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD, &vcpu->requests);
> + smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
> + wake_up_bit(&vcpu->requests, KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD);
> +
And this should be generic? Say if other architectures want to make use
of a similar wait infrastructure. Talk is cheap.
Anyway, yeah, the set request / wait mechanism you implement here is
quite similar to the idea mentioned earlier that could be used for x86.
Just get rid of this explicit KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD knowledge in
arch-independent code please (if you want to see this merged).
Later it can all be lifted off to arch independent code.
> kvm_put_kvm(vcpu->kvm);
> return 0;
> }
--
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
