On 12/27/2011 05:15 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:06:47 +0200
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > > There seems to be possible concurrent __set_bit()'s to the same word
> > > which will result in bit loss.
> > >
> > > I was thinking to change the kvm-unit-tests' dirty log test to writ
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:06:47 +0200
Avi Kivity wrote:
> > There seems to be possible concurrent __set_bit()'s to the same word
> > which will result in bit loss.
> >
> > I was thinking to change the kvm-unit-tests' dirty log test to write
> > to two consecutive pages concurrently. Is this good fo
On 12/27/2011 05:03 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > > It should not be necessary, atomicity of updates to
> > > memslot->dirty_bitmap, because of RCU updates to the memslot pointer
> > > (note memslot = gfn_to_memslot(kvm, gfn); in mark_page_dirty).
> > >
> > > The order is:
Avi Kivity wrote:
> > It should not be necessary, atomicity of updates to
> > memslot->dirty_bitmap, because of RCU updates to the memslot pointer
> > (note memslot = gfn_to_memslot(kvm, gfn); in mark_page_dirty).
> >
> > The order is:
> >
> > - update page data.
> > - grab memslot pointer.
> > -
On 12/27/2011 03:50 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 11:52:51AM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:14:51 -0200
> > Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > > > >btw mark_page_dirty() itself seems to assume mmu_lock protection that
> > > > >doesn't exist. Marcelo?
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 11:52:51AM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:14:51 -0200
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > > >btw mark_page_dirty() itself seems to assume mmu_lock protection that
> > > >doesn't exist. Marcelo?
> > > >
> >
> > Not mmu_lock protection, kvm->srcu protec
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:14:51 -0200
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >btw mark_page_dirty() itself seems to assume mmu_lock protection that
> > >doesn't exist. Marcelo?
> > >
>
> Not mmu_lock protection, kvm->srcu protection.
But it just protects slot readers against updates and two, or more, threads
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 01:29:35PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> (2011/11/14 19:07), Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>@@ -1491,7 +1492,8 @@ void mark_page_dirty_in_slot(struct kvm *kvm, struct
> >>kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
> >>if (memslot&& memslot->dirty_bitmap) {
> >>unsigned long rel_g
(2011/11/14 19:07), Avi Kivity wrote:
@@ -1491,7 +1492,8 @@ void mark_page_dirty_in_slot(struct kvm *kvm, struct
kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
if (memslot&& memslot->dirty_bitmap) {
unsigned long rel_gfn = gfn - memslot->base_gfn;
- __set_bit_le(rel_gfn, memsl
On 11/14/2011 12:07 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 11:23 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > Needed for the next patch which uses this number to decide how to write
> > protect a slot.
> >
> > /* If nothing is dirty, don't bother messing with page tables. */
> > - if (is_dirty) {
> > + i
On 11/14/2011 11:23 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Needed for the next patch which uses this number to decide how to write
> protect a slot.
>
> /* If nothing is dirty, don't bother messing with page tables. */
> - if (is_dirty) {
> + if (memslot->nr_dirty_pages) {
> stru
Needed for the next patch which uses this number to decide how to write
protect a slot.
Signed-off-by: Takuya Yoshikawa
---
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c |9 +++--
include/linux/kvm_host.h |1 +
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c |4 +++-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff -
12 matches
Mail list logo
