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
---
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |1 +
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 12 +++-
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c |3 +++
3 f
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
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |1 +
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
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
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 her
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
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)
> +
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 tr
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 pre
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?
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 especiall
10 matches
Mail list logo
