[ Post again after adjusting the format since the mail list rejected to deliver my previous one. ]
On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:06 PM, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosa...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:06:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >> On 08/07/2013 09:48 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:02:02PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >>>> Make sure we can see the writable spte before the dirt bitmap is visible >>>> >>>> We do this is for kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() write-protects the spte >>>> based >>>> on the dirty bitmap, we should ensure the writable spte can be found in >>>> rmap >>>> before the dirty bitmap is visible. Otherwise, we cleared the dirty bitmap >>>> and >>>> failed to write-protect the page >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 6 +++--- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> Can you explain why this is safe, with regard to the rule >>> at edde99ce05290e50 ? >> >> BTW, this log fixed this case: >> >> VCPU 0 KVM migration control >> >> write-protects all pages >> #Pf happen then the page >> become writable, set dirty >> bit on the bitmap >> >> swap the bitmap, current bitmap is empty >> >> write the page (no dirty log) >> >> stop the guest and push >> the remaining dirty pages >> Stopped >> See current bitmap is empty that means >> no page is dirty. >>> >>> "The rule is that all pages are either dirty in the current bitmap, >>> or write-protected, which is violated here." >> >> Actually, this rule is not complete true, there's the 3th case: >> the window between write guest page and set dirty bitmap is valid. >> In that window, page is write-free and not dirty logged. >> >> This case is based on the fact that at the final step of live migration, >> kvm should stop the guest and push the remaining dirty pages to the >> destination. >> >> They're some examples in the current code: >> example 1, in fast_pf_fix_direct_spte(): >> if (cmpxchg64(sptep, spte, spte | PT_WRITABLE_MASK) == spte) >> /* The window in here... */ >> mark_page_dirty(vcpu->kvm, gfn); >> >> example 2, in kvm_write_guest_page(): >> r = __copy_to_user((void __user *)addr + offset, data, len); >> if (r) >> return -EFAULT; >> /* >> * The window is here, the page is dirty but not logged in >> * The bitmap. >> */ >> mark_page_dirty(kvm, gfn); >> return 0; >> >>> >>> Overall, please document what is the required order of operations for >>> both set_spte and get_dirty_log and why this order is safe (right on top >>> of the code). >> >> Okay. >> >> The order we required here is, we should 1) set spte to writable __before__ >> set the dirty bitmap and 2) add the spte into rmap __before__ set the dirty >> bitmap. >> >> The point 1) is the same as fast_pf_fix_direct_spte(), which i explained >> above. >> The point 1) and 2) can ensure we can find the spte on rmap and see the spte >> is >> writable when we do lockless write-protection, otherwise these cases will >> happen >> >> VCPU 0 kvm ioctl doing get-dirty-pages >> >> mark_page_dirty(gfn) which >> set the gfn on the dirty maps >> mask = xchg(dirty_bitmap, 0) >> >> walk all gfns which set on "mask" and >> locklessly write-protect the gfn, >> then walk rmap, see no spte on that rmap >> >> >> add the spte into rmap >> >> !!!!!! Then the page can be freely wrote but not recorded in the dirty >> bitmap. >> >> Or: >> >> VCPU 0 kvm ioctl doing get-dirty-pages >> >> mark_page_dirty(gfn) which >> set the gfn on the dirty maps >> >> add spte into rmap >> mask = xchg(dirty_bitmap, 0) >> >> walk all gfns which set on "mask" and >> locklessly write-protect the gfn, >> then walk rmap, see spte is on the ramp >> but it is readonly or nonpresent. >> >> Mark spte writable >> >> !!!!!! Then the page can be freely wrote but not recorded in the dirty >> bitmap. >> >> Hopefully, i have clarified it, if you have any questions, please let me >> know. > > Yes, partially. Please on top of the explanation above, have something along > the lines of > > "The flush IPI assumes that a thread switch happens in this order" > comment at arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > > "With get_user_pages_fast, we walk down the pagetables without taking" > comment at arch/x86/mm/gup.c Marcelo, thanks for your suggestion, i will improve both the changelog and the comments in the next version. > > > What about the relation between read-only spte and respective TLB flush? > That is: > > vcpu0 vcpu1 > > lockless write protect > mark spte read-only > either some mmu-lockless path or not > write protect page: > find read-only page > assumes tlb is flushed The tlb flush on mmu-lockless paths do not depends on the spte, there are two lockless paths: one is kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access() which unconditionally flushes tlb, another one is kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log() which flushes tlb based on dirty bitmap (flush tlb if have dirty page). Under the protection of mmu-lock, since we flush tlb whenever spte is zapped, we only need to care the case of spte updating which is fixed in "[PATCH 06/12] KVM: MMU: flush tlb if the spte can be locklessly modified", in that patch, it changes the flush-condition to - if (is_writable_pte(old_spte) && !is_writable_pte(new_spte)) + if (spte_is_locklessly_modifiable(old_spte) && + !is_writable_pte(new_spte)) That means whenever a spte which can be potentially locklessly-modified becomes readonly, do the tlb flush. > > kvm_flush_remote_tlbs > > > In general, i think write protection is a good candidate for lockless > operation. > However, i would also be concerned about the larger problem of mmu-lock > contention and how to solve it. Did you ever consider splitting it? Yes, i did and actaully am still working on that. :) -- 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/
