On 11/16/2012 11:02 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 07:17:15AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 11/14/2012 10:37 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 04:26:16PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>> Hi Marcelo,
>>>>
>>>> On 11/13/2012 07:10 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:59:26PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>>>> Do not drop large spte until it can be insteaded by small pages so that
>>>>>> the guest can happliy read memory through it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea is from Avi:
>>>>>> | As I mentioned before, write-protecting a large spte is a good idea,
>>>>>> | since it moves some work from protect-time to fault-time, so it reduces
>>>>>> | jitter. This removes the need for the return value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 34 +++++++++-------------------------
>>>>>> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Its likely that other 4k pages are mapped read-write in the 2mb range
>>>>> covered by a read-only 2mb map. Therefore its not entirely useful to
>>>>> map read-only.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It needs a page fault to install a pte even if it is the read access.
>>>> After the change, the page fault can be avoided.
>>>>
>>>>> Can you measure an improvement with this change?
>>>>
>>>> I have a test case to measure the read time which has been attached.
>>>> It maps 4k pages at first (dirt-loggged), then switch to large sptes
>>>> (stop dirt-logging), at the last, measure the read access time after write
>>>> protect sptes.
>>>>
>>>> Before: 23314111 ns After: 11404197 ns
>>>
>>> Ok, i'm concerned about cases similar to e49146dce8c3dc6f44 (with shadow),
>>> that is:
>>>
>>> - large page must be destroyed when write protecting due to
>>> shadowed page.
>>> - with shadow, it does not make sense to write protect
>>> large sptes as mentioned earlier.
>>>
>>
>> This case is removed now, the code when e49146dce8c3dc6f44 was applied is:
>> |
>> | pt = sp->spt;
>> | for (i = 0; i < PT64_ENT_PER_PAGE; ++i)
>> | /* avoid RMW */
>> | if (is_writable_pte(pt[i]))
>> | update_spte(&pt[i], pt[i] &
>> ~PT_WRITABLE_MASK);
>> | }
>>
>> The real problem in this code is it would write-protect the spte even if
>> it is not a last spte that caused the middle-level shadow page table was
>> write-protected. So e49146dce8c3dc6f44 added this code:
>> | if (sp->role.level != PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL)
>> | continue;
>> |
>> was good to fix this problem.
>>
>> Now, the current code is:
>> | for (i = 0; i < PT64_ENT_PER_PAGE; ++i) {
>> | if (!is_shadow_present_pte(pt[i]) ||
>> | !is_last_spte(pt[i], sp->role.level))
>> | continue;
>> |
>> | spte_write_protect(kvm, &pt[i], &flush, false);
>> | }
>> It only write-protect the last spte. So, it allows large spte existent.
>> (the large spte can be broken by drop_large_spte() on the page-fault path.)
>>
>>> So i wonder why is this part from your patch
>>>
>>> - if (level > PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL &&
>>> - has_wrprotected_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn, level)) {
>>> - ret = 1;
>>> - drop_spte(vcpu->kvm, sptep);
>>> - goto done;
>>> - }
>>>
>>> necessary (assuming EPT is in use).
>>
>> This is safe, we change these code to:
>>
>> - if (mmu_need_write_protect(vcpu, gfn, can_unsync)) {
>> + if ((level > PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL &&
>> + has_wrprotected_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn, level)) ||
>> + mmu_need_write_protect(vcpu, gfn, can_unsync)) {
>> pgprintk("%s: found shadow page for %llx, marking ro\n",
>> __func__, gfn);
>> ret = 1;
>>
>> The spte become read-only which can ensure the shadow gfn can not be changed.
>>
>> Btw, the origin code allows to create readonly spte under this case if
>> !(pte_access & WRITEABBLE)
>
> Regarding shadow: it should be fine as long as fault path always deletes
> large mappings, when shadowed pages are present in the region.
For hard mmu is also safe, in this patch i added these code:
@@ -2635,6 +2617,8 @@ static int __direct_map(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t v,
int write,
break;
}
+ drop_large_spte(vcpu, iterator.sptep);
+
It can delete large mappings like soft mmu does.
Anything i missed?
>
> Ah, unshadowing from reexecute_instruction does not handle
> large pages. I suppose that is what "simplification" refers
> to.
reexecute_instruction did not directly handle last spte, it just
removes all shadow pages, then let cpu retry the instruction, the
page can become writable when encounter #PF again, large spte is fine
under this case.
(Out of this thread: I notice reexecute_instruction allows to retry
instruct only if tdp_enabled == 0, but on nested npt, it also has
page write-protected by shadow pages. Maybe we need to improve this
restriction.
)
--
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/
