* Izik Eidus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
>>> list_add_tail(&slot->link, &ksm->slots);
>>
>> slots_lock?
>
> good catch, i forgat to put it here
>
>>> list_add_tail(&slot->sma_link, &ksm_sma->sma_slots);
>>>
>>
>> theoretical, but if threaded, registering program could do this
>> concurrently
>
> you talk here about the miss slots_lock?, i agree that it needed here
Yeah, I missed that slots_lock protects both.
>>> case KSM_REGISTER_MEMORY_REGION: {
>>> struct ksm_memory_region ksm_memory_region;
>>>
>>> r = -EFAULT;
>>> if (copy_from_user(&ksm_memory_region, argp,
>>> sizeof ksm_memory_region))
>>
>> this doesn't look compat safe:
>>
>> struct ksm_memory_region {
>> __u32 npages; /* number of pages to share */
>> __u64 addr; /* the begining of the virtual address */
>> };
>
> why isnt it compat safe?
32-bit has more relaxed alignment requirement for __u64 (4 bytes)
than 64-bit (8 bytes). choices are reverse the order or add padding
(can test by compiling structure in 32 and 64 bit).
>>> static int is_present_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
>>> {
>>> pgd_t *pgd;
>>> pud_t *pud;
>>> pmd_t *pmd;
>>> pte_t *ptep;
>>> spinlock_t *ptl;
>>> int ret = 0;
>>>
>>> pgd = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
>>> if (!pgd_present(*pgd))
>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
>>> if (!pud_present(*pud))
>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
>>> if (!pmd_present(*pmd))
>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
>>> if (!ptep)
>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> if (pte_present(*ptep))
>>> ret = 1;
>>>
>>> pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
>>> out:
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>
>> This is generic helper.
>
> you recommended insert it to memory.c?
I think so, would help to convert another user. But, as is typical in
this area, each have slightly different requirements.
>>> /*
>>> * try_to_merge_one_page - take two pages and merge them into one
>>> * note:
>>> * oldpage should be anon page while newpage should be file mapped page
>>> */
>>> static int try_to_merge_one_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>> struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> struct page *oldpage,
>>> struct page *newpage,
>>> pgprot_t newprot)
>>> {
>>> int ret = 0;
>>> unsigned long page_addr_in_vma;
>>> void *oldaddr, *newaddr;
>>>
>>> get_page(newpage);
>>> get_page(oldpage);
>>>
>>> down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>>>
>>> lock_two_pages(oldpage, newpage);
>>>
>>> page_addr_in_vma = addr_in_vma(vma, oldpage);
>>> if (page_addr_in_vma == -EFAULT)
>>> goto out_unlock;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * if the page is swapped or in swap cache, we cannot replace its pte
>>> * we might want to run here swap_free in the future (it isnt exported)
>>> */
>>> if (!is_present_pte(mm, page_addr_in_vma))
>>> goto out_unlock;
>>>
>>> if (!page_wrprotect(oldpage))
>>> goto out_unlock;
>>>
>>> oldaddr = kmap_atomic(oldpage, KM_USER0);
>>> newaddr = kmap_atomic(newpage, KM_USER1);
>>>
>>> ret = 1;
>>> if (!memcmp(oldaddr, newaddr, PAGE_SIZE))
>>> ret = replace_page(vma, oldpage, newpage, newprot);
>>>
>>
>> Does it make sense to leave oldpage r/o if replace_page fails?
>
> the chance here that it wont be the same is very very low,
> but it could happen, and in this case we will have vmexit and pagefault +
> copying of a page data for nothing
right
> it can be solved by adding to the rmap something like:
> page_writeble() tha will work the same as page_wrprotect() but will mark
> the pte as write instead of readonly,
> the question is: if it wanted to the rmap code?
maybe it's overkill
>>> case KSM_CREATE_SCAN:
>>> r = ksm_dev_ioctl_create_scan();
>>>
>> What's the value of having multiple scanners?
>> And how expensive is scanning?
> right now there is no real value in having multiple scanners, but the cost
> for this design is nothing
yes, only cost is runtime, and if each guest launch would get stuck
behind a bunch of scanners. since they need write access to add sma.
at least /dev/ksm being 0600 would keep it from DoS threat.
> in the future we might want to make each scanner to scan some limited areas
> at a given speed...
>
> while(1) {
> r = ioctl(fd_scan, KSM_SCAN, 100);
> usleep(1000);
> }
>
> this scanner take 0-1% (more to 0...) of the memory in case it doesnt merge
> anything (just to scan)
> it really take no cpu as far as it doesnt find any pages to merge,
> it should be noted that scanning should be slower than the above example,
> when a page to be merged is found the cpu usage grow a little bit beacuse
> it now copy the data of the merged pages
>
> i will run few workload tests and report to you as soon as i will have
> better information about this.
ok, thanks.
-chris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
