On 02/16/2012 06:50 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
I think we do not need handle all tlb-flushed request here since all of these
request can be delayed to the point where mmu-lock is released , we can simply
do it:
void kvm_mmu_defer_remote_flush(kvm, need_flush)
{
if (need_flush)
On 02/16/2012 07:57 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
Suppose at point A another thread executes defer_remote_flush(),
commit_remote_flush(), and defer_remote_flush() again. This brings the
balue of tlbs_dirty back to 1 again, with the tlbs dirty. The cmpxchg()
then resets tlbs_dirty, leaving the
On 02/14/2012 09:43 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Also it should not be necessary for these flushes to be inside mmu_lock
on EPT/NPT case (since there is no write protection there).
We do write protect with TDP, if nested virt is active. The question is
whether we have indirect pages or not, not
On 02/15/2012 11:18 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/14/2012 09:43 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Also it should not be necessary for these flushes to be inside mmu_lock
on EPT/NPT case (since there is no write protection there).
We do write protect with TDP, if nested virt is active. The question
On 02/15/2012 05:47 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/15/2012 11:18 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/14/2012 09:43 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Also it should not be necessary for these flushes to be inside mmu_lock
on EPT/NPT case (since there is no write protection there).
We do write protect with
On 02/15/2012 01:37 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
I would really like to move the IPI back out of the lock.
How about something like a sequence lock:
spin_lock(mmu_lock)
need_flush = write_protect_stuff();
atomic_add(kvm-want_flush_counter, need_flush);
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:07:49PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Well, it still has flushes inside the lock. And it seems to be more
complicated, but maybe that's because I thought of my idea and didn't
fully grok yours yet.
If we go more complicated I prefer Avi's suggestion to move them all
On 02/15/2012 10:07 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 02/15/2012 01:37 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
I would really like to move the IPI back out of the lock.
How about something like a sequence lock:
spin_lock(mmu_lock)
need_flush = write_protect_stuff();
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:28:31PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Other threads may process the same page in that small window and skip
TLB flush and then return before these functions do flush.
It's correct to flush the shadow MMU TLB without the mmu_lock only in
the context of mmu notifier
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:52:49PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 02/10/2012 02:28 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Other threads may process the same page in that small window and skip
TLB flush and then return before these functions do flush.
It is possible that flush tlb in mmu lock
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 06:10:44PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:28:31PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Other threads may process the same page in that small window and skip
TLB flush and then return before these functions do flush.
It's correct to flush the
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:29:47PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
The problem the patch is fixing is not related to page freeing, but
rmap_write_protect. From 8bf3f6f06fcdfd097b6c6ec51531d8292fa0d81d
Can't find the commit on kvm.git.
(replace A (get_dirty_log) with
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:53:56PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:29:47PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
The problem the patch is fixing is not related to page freeing, but
rmap_write_protect. From 8bf3f6f06fcdfd097b6c6ec51531d8292fa0d81d
Can't find the commit on
(2012/02/10 16:52), Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 02/10/2012 02:28 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Other threads may process the same page in that small window and skip
TLB flush and then return before these functions do flush.
It is possible that flush tlb in mmu lock only when writeable
spte is
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:28:31PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Other threads may process the same page in that small window and skip
TLB flush and then return before these functions do flush.
Signed-off-by: Takuya Yoshikawa yoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
---
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 19
Other threads may process the same page in that small window and skip
TLB flush and then return before these functions do flush.
Signed-off-by: Takuya Yoshikawa yoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp
---
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 19 ++-
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
On 02/10/2012 02:28 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
Other threads may process the same page in that small window and skip
TLB flush and then return before these functions do flush.
It is possible that flush tlb in mmu lock only when writeable
spte is invalided? Sometimes, kvm_flush_remote_tlbs
17 matches
Mail list logo
