On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:20:38AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 12/01/2010 03:20 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Firs of all if guest is PV the guest process cannot be killed. Second
why is it a problem that we marked pfn as accessed on speculative path?
What problem it causes especially since
Retry #PF is the speculative path, so don't set the accessed bit,
especially, stop prefault if shadow_accessed_mask = 0
Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong xiaoguangr...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |1 +
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 12 +++-
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:36:07PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Retry #PF is the speculative path, so don't set the accessed bit,
especially, stop prefault if shadow_accessed_mask = 0
Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong xiaoguangr...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |1 +
On 11/30/2010 09:29 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
+if (!shadow_accessed_mask)
+return;
+
I don't get this. As far as I can see VMX inits shadow_accessed_mask to
be zero if ept is enabled. This line here means that we never prefault with
ept
enabled. It is opposite from what it
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 12:52:22AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/30/2010 09:29 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
+ if (!shadow_accessed_mask)
+ return;
+
I don't get this. As far as I can see VMX inits shadow_accessed_mask to
be zero if ept is enabled. This line here means that
On 12/01/2010 01:50 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 12:52:22AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/30/2010 09:29 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
+ if (!shadow_accessed_mask)
+ return;
+
I don't get this. As far as I can see VMX inits shadow_accessed_mask to
be zero if ept
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:15:29AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 12/01/2010 01:50 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 12:52:22AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/30/2010 09:29 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
+if (!shadow_accessed_mask)
+return;
+
I
On 12/01/2010 02:38 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
It can't avoid the page to be evicted again since the page is marked
accessed only
when spte is droped or updated.
I still do not understand why are you disabling prefault for ept. Why
do you want to distinguish between actually accessed
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 03:11:11AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 12/01/2010 02:38 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
It can't avoid the page to be evicted again since the page is marked
accessed only
when spte is droped or updated.
I still do not understand why are you disabling prefault for
On 12/01/2010 03:20 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Firs of all if guest is PV the guest process cannot be killed. Second
why is it a problem that we marked pfn as accessed on speculative path?
What problem it causes especially since it is very likely that the page
will be accessed shortly anyway?
10 matches
Mail list logo