On 08/28/2013 04:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> +
>> + rmap_printk("pte_list_add: %p %llx many->many\n", spte, *spte);
>> + desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul);
>> +
>> + /* No empty position in the desc. */
>> + if (desc->sptes[PTE_LIST_EXT - 1]) {
>> + struct pte_list_desc *new_desc;
>> + new_desc = mmu_alloc_pte_list_desc(vcpu);
>> + new_desc->more = desc;
>> + desc = new_desc;
>> + *pte_list = (unsigned long)desc | 1;
>> }
>> - return count;
>> +
>> + free_pos = find_first_free(desc);
>> + desc->sptes[free_pos] = spte;
>> + return count_spte_number(desc);
> Should it be count_spte_number(desc) - 1? The function should returns
> the number of pte entries before the spte was added.
Yes. We have handled it count_spte_number(), we count the number like this:
return first_free + desc_num * PTE_LIST_EXT;
The first_free is indexed from 0.
Maybe it is clearer to let count_spte_number() return the real number.
>
>> }
>>
>> static void
>> -pte_list_desc_remove_entry(unsigned long *pte_list, struct pte_list_desc
>> *desc,
>> - int i, struct pte_list_desc *prev_desc)
>> +pte_list_desc_remove_entry(unsigned long *pte_list,
>> + struct pte_list_desc *desc, int i)
>> {
>> - int j;
>> + struct pte_list_desc *first_desc;
>> + int last_used;
>> +
>> + first_desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul);
>> + last_used = find_last_used(first_desc);
>>
>> - for (j = PTE_LIST_EXT - 1; !desc->sptes[j] && j > i; --j)
>> - ;
>> - desc->sptes[i] = desc->sptes[j];
>> - desc->sptes[j] = NULL;
>> - if (j != 0)
>> + /*
>> + * Move the entry from the first desc to this position we want
>> + * to remove.
>> + */
>> + desc->sptes[i] = first_desc->sptes[last_used];
>> + first_desc->sptes[last_used] = NULL;
>> +
> What if desc == first_desc and i < last_used. You still move spte
> backwards so lockless walk may have already examined entry at i and
> will miss spte that was moved there from last_used position, no?
Right. I noticed it too and fixed in the v2 which is being tested.
I fixed it by bottom-up walk desc, like this:
pte_list_walk_lockless():
desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(pte_list_value & ~1ul);
while (!desc_is_a_nulls(desc)) {
/*
* We should do bottom-up walk since we always use the
* bottom entry to replace the deleted entry if only
* one desc is used in the rmap when a spte is removed.
* Otherwise the moved entry will be missed.
*/
for (i = PTE_LIST_EXT - 1; i >= 0; i--)
fn(desc->sptes[i]);
desc = ACCESS_ONCE(desc->more);
/* It is being initialized. */
if (unlikely(!desc))
goto restart;
}
How about this?
>
>> + /* No valid entry in this desc, we can free this desc now. */
>> + if (!first_desc->sptes[0]) {
>> + struct pte_list_desc *next_desc = first_desc->more;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Only one entry existing but still use a desc to store it?
>> + */
>> + WARN_ON(!next_desc);
>> +
>> + mmu_free_pte_list_desc(first_desc);
>> + first_desc = next_desc;
>> + *pte_list = (unsigned long)first_desc | 1ul;
>> return;
>> - if (!prev_desc && !desc->more)
>> - *pte_list = (unsigned long)desc->sptes[0];
>> - else
>> - if (prev_desc)
>> - prev_desc->more = desc->more;
>> - else
>> - *pte_list = (unsigned long)desc->more | 1;
>> - mmu_free_pte_list_desc(desc);
>> + }
>> +
>> + WARN_ON(!first_desc->sptes[0]);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Only one entry in this desc, move the entry to the head
>> + * then the desc can be freed.
>> + */
>> + if (!first_desc->sptes[1] && !first_desc->more) {
>> + *pte_list = (unsigned long)first_desc->sptes[0];
>> + mmu_free_pte_list_desc(first_desc);
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> static void pte_list_remove(u64 *spte, unsigned long *pte_list)
>> {
>> struct pte_list_desc *desc;
>> - struct pte_list_desc *prev_desc;
>> int i;
>>
>> if (!*pte_list) {
>> - printk(KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 0->BUG\n", spte);
>> - BUG();
>> - } else if (!(*pte_list & 1)) {
>> + WARN(1, KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 0->BUG\n", spte);
> Why change BUG() to WARN() here and below?
WARN(1, "xxx") can replace two lines in the origin code. And personally,
i prefer WARN() to BUG() since sometimes BUG() can stop my box and i need to
get the full log by using kdump.
If you object it, i will change it back in the next version. :)
>
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!(*pte_list & 1)) {
>> rmap_printk("pte_list_remove: %p 1->0\n", spte);
>> if ((u64 *)*pte_list != spte) {
>> - printk(KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 1->BUG\n", spte);
>> - BUG();
>> + WARN(1, KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 1->BUG\n", spte);
>> }
> Remove {} since only one statement left in the if(). Or better yet why
> not:
> WARN ((u64 *)*pte_list != spte, ....)?
Yes, it is better.
> But again why not BUG()?
The explanation is above. :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
