for you?
Looks fine, can you rerun kernbench?
Subject: [PATCH 11/11] KVM: MMU: improve write flooding detected
Detecting write-flooding does not work well, when we handle page written, if
the last speculative spte is not accessed, we treat the page is
write
On 08/26/2011 06:53 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:18:01AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/25/2011 09:47 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
I guess it is OK to be more trigger happy with zapping by ignoring
the accessed bit, clearing the flood counter on page fault.
Yeah,
On 08/25/2011 10:04 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Yes, in this case, the sp is not zapped, but it is hardly to know the gfn
is not used as gpte just depends on writing, for example, the guest can
change the mapping address or the status bit, and so on...The sp can be
zapped if the guest write it
On 08/24/2011 03:09 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:32:32AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/23/2011 08:38 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
And, i think there are not problems since: if the spte without accssed bit
is
written frequently, it means the guest page table is
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 07:42:10AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/25/2011 05:04 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
It could increase the flood count independently of the accessed bit of
the spte being updated, zapping after 3 attempts as it is now.
But additionally reset the flood count if
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 03:57:22PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/24/2011 03:09 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:32:32AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/23/2011 08:38 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
And, i think there are not problems since: if the spte without
On 08/25/2011 05:06 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/25/2011 04:21 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 07:42:10AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/25/2011 05:04 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
It could increase the flood count independently of the
accessed bit of
the spte being
On 08/25/2011 04:21 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 07:42:10AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/25/2011 05:04 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
It could increase the flood count independently of the accessed bit of
the spte being updated, zapping after 3 attempts as it
On 08/25/2011 09:47 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
I guess it is OK to be more trigger happy with zapping by ignoring
the accessed bit, clearing the flood counter on page fault.
Yeah, i like this way, is this patch good for you?
Subject: [PATCH 11/11] KVM: MMU
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 04:16:52AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/24/2011 03:09 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:32:32AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/23/2011 08:38 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
And, i think there are not problems since: if the spte without
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 05:05:40PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 04:16:52AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/24/2011 03:09 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:32:32AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/23/2011 08:38 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On 08/25/2011 05:04 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
It could increase the flood count independently of the accessed bit of
the spte being updated, zapping after 3 attempts as it is now.
But additionally reset the flood count if the gpte appears to be valid
(points to an existant gfn if the
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 02:46:47PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Detecting write-flooding does not work well, when we handle page written, if
the last speculative spte is not accessed, we treat the page is
write-flooding, however, we can speculative spte on many path, such as pte
prefetch, page
Hi Marcelo,
On 08/23/2011 04:00 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 02:46:47PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Detecting write-flooding does not work well, when we handle page written, if
the last speculative spte is not accessed, we treat the page is
write-flooding, however, we
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 06:55:39PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Hi Marcelo,
On 08/23/2011 04:00 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 02:46:47PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Detecting write-flooding does not work well, when we handle page written,
if
the last speculative
On 08/23/2011 08:38 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
And, i think there are not problems since: if the spte without accssed bit is
written frequently, it means the guest page table is accessed infrequently or
during the writing, the guest page table is not accessed, in this time,
zapping
this
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:32:32AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/23/2011 08:38 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
And, i think there are not problems since: if the spte without accssed bit
is
written frequently, it means the guest page table is accessed infrequently
or
during the
On 08/24/2011 03:09 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:32:32AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 08/23/2011 08:38 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
And, i think there are not problems since: if the spte without accssed bit
is
written frequently, it means the guest page table is
Detecting write-flooding does not work well, when we handle page written, if
the last speculative spte is not accessed, we treat the page is
write-flooding, however, we can speculative spte on many path, such as pte
prefetch, page synced, that means the last speculative spte may be not point
to
On 07/26/2011 02:32 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Detecting write-flooding does not work well, when we handle page written, if
the last speculative spte is not accessed, we treat the page is
write-flooding, however, we can speculative spte on many path, such as pte
prefetch, page synced, that means
On 07/27/2011 05:23 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 07/26/2011 02:32 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Detecting write-flooding does not work well, when we handle page written, if
the last speculative spte is not accessed, we treat the page is
write-flooding, however, we can speculative spte on many path,
On 07/27/2011 01:20 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
}
I think this is a little dangerous. A guest kernel may be instantiating
multiple gptes on a page fault, but guest userspace hits only one of them (the one
which caused the page fault) - I think Windows does this, but I'm not sure.
I
On 07/27/2011 07:08 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 07/27/2011 01:20 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
}
I think this is a little dangerous. A guest kernel may be instantiating
multiple gptes on a page fault, but guest userspace hits only one of them
(the one which caused the page fault) - I
Detecting write-flooding does not work well, when we handle page written, if
the last speculative spte is not accessed, we treat the page is
write-flooding, however, we can speculative spte on many path, such as pte
prefetch, page synced, that means the last speculative spte may be not point
to
24 matches
Mail list logo
