Il 20/08/2014 03:03, David Matlack ha scritto:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Xiao Guangrong
> wrote:
>> On 08/19/2014 05:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Il 19/08/2014 10:50, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
Okay, what confused me it that it seems that the single line patch
is ok to you. :
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Xiao Guangrong
wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 05:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 19/08/2014 10:50, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
>>> Okay, what confused me it that it seems that the single line patch
>>> is ok to you. :)
>>
>> No, it was late and I was confused. :)
>>
>>> N
On 08/19/2014 05:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 19/08/2014 10:50, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
>> Okay, what confused me it that it seems that the single line patch
>> is ok to you. :)
>
> No, it was late and I was confused. :)
>
>> Now, do we really need to care the case 2? like David said:
>> "
Il 19/08/2014 10:50, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
> Okay, what confused me it that it seems that the single line patch
> is ok to you. :)
No, it was late and I was confused. :)
> Now, do we really need to care the case 2? like David said:
> "Sorry I didn't explain myself very well: Since we can get
On 08/19/2014 04:28 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 19/08/2014 05:50, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
>>
>> Note in the step *, my approach detects the invalid generation-number which
>> will invalidate the mmio spte properly .
>
> You are right, in fact my mail included another part: "Another
> alterna
Il 19/08/2014 05:50, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
>
> Note in the step *, my approach detects the invalid generation-number which
> will invalidate the mmio spte properly .
You are right, in fact my mail included another part: "Another
alternative could be to use the low bit to mark an in-progress
On 08/19/2014 01:40 PM, David Matlack wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Xiao Guangrong
> wrote:
>> On 08/19/2014 01:00 PM, David Matlack wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Xiao Guangrong
>>> wrote:
On 08/19/2014 12:31 PM, David Matlack wrote:
> The single line patch I s
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Xiao Guangrong
wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 01:00 PM, David Matlack wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Xiao Guangrong
>> wrote:
>>> On 08/19/2014 12:31 PM, David Matlack wrote:
The single line patch I suggested was only intended to fix the "forever
in
On 08/19/2014 01:00 PM, David Matlack wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Xiao Guangrong
> wrote:
>> On 08/19/2014 12:31 PM, David Matlack wrote:
>>> But it looks like you basically said the same thing earlier, so I think
>>> we're on the same page.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is what i try to expla
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Xiao Guangrong
wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 12:31 PM, David Matlack wrote:
>> But it looks like you basically said the same thing earlier, so I think
>> we're on the same page.
>>
>
> Yes, that is what i try to explain in previous mails. :(
I'm glad we understand each o
On 08/19/2014 12:31 PM, David Matlack wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Xiao Guangrong
> wrote:
>> On 08/19/2014 05:15 AM, David Matlack wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Xiao Guangrong
>>> wrote:
@@ -287,9 +293,15 @@ static bool set_mmio_spte(struct kvm *kvm, u64
*s
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Xiao Guangrong
wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 05:15 AM, David Matlack wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Xiao Guangrong
>> wrote:
>>> @@ -287,9 +293,15 @@ static bool set_mmio_spte(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep,
>>> gfn_t gfn,
>>>
>>> static bool check_mmio_spte(
On 08/19/2014 05:15 AM, David Matlack wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Xiao Guangrong
> wrote:
>> @@ -287,9 +293,15 @@ static bool set_mmio_spte(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep,
>> gfn_t gfn,
>>
>> static bool check_mmio_spte(struct kvm *kvm, u64 spte)
>> {
>> + struct kvm_memslots
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/08/2014 23:15, David Matlack ha scritto:
>> I just realized how simple Paolo's idea is. I think it can be a one line
>> patch (without comments):
>>
>> [...]
>> update_memslots(slots, new, kvm->memslots->generation);
>>
Il 18/08/2014 23:15, David Matlack ha scritto:
> I just realized how simple Paolo's idea is. I think it can be a one line
> patch (without comments):
>
> [...]
> update_memslots(slots, new, kvm->memslots->generation);
> rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots, slots);
> synchroniz
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Xiao Guangrong
wrote:
> @@ -287,9 +293,15 @@ static bool set_mmio_spte(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep,
> gfn_t gfn,
>
> static bool check_mmio_spte(struct kvm *kvm, u64 spte)
> {
> + struct kvm_memslots *slots = kvm_memslots(kvm);
> unsigned int kvm_
On Aug 19, 2014, at 2:47 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> I think this patch is auditable, page-fault is always called by holding
>> srcu-lock so that a page fault can’t go across synchronize_srcu_expedited.
>> Only these cases can happen:
>>
>> 1) page fault occurs before synchronize_srcu_exped
Il 18/08/2014 18:35, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> Thank you to review the patch!
>
> On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> Il 14/08/2014 09:01, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
>>> - update_memslots(slots, new, kvm->memslots->generation);
>>> + /* ensure generati
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Xiao Guangrong
wrote:
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> Thank you to review the patch!
>
> On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> Il 14/08/2014 09:01, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
>>> -update_memslots(slots, new, kvm->memslots->generation);
>>> +/* ensure ge
Hi Paolo,
Thank you to review the patch!
On Aug 18, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 14/08/2014 09:01, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
>> -update_memslots(slots, new, kvm->memslots->generation);
>> +/* ensure generation number is always increased. */
>> +slots->generation = o
Il 14/08/2014 09:01, Xiao Guangrong ha scritto:
> - update_memslots(slots, new, kvm->memslots->generation);
> + /* ensure generation number is always increased. */
> + slots->generation = old_memslots->generation;
> + update_memslots(slots, new);
> rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->mems
Sorry, the title is not clear enough.
This is the v2 which fixes the issue pointed out by David:
" the generation number actually decreases."
Please review.
On 08/14/2014 03:01 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> We may cache the current mmio generation number and stale memslot info
> into spte, like t
We may cache the current mmio generation number and stale memslot info
into spte, like this scenario：
CPU 0 CPU 1
page fault:add a new memslot
read memslot and detecting its a mmio access
On 08/13/2014 05:18 AM, David Matlack wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Xiao Guangrong
> wrote:
>> @@ -722,9 +719,10 @@ static struct kvm_memslots *install_new_memslots(struct
>> kvm *kvm,
>> {
>> struct kvm_memslots *old_memslots = kvm->memslots;
>>
>
> I think you want
>
>
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Xiao Guangrong
wrote:
> @@ -722,9 +719,10 @@ static struct kvm_memslots *install_new_memslots(struct
> kvm *kvm,
> {
> struct kvm_memslots *old_memslots = kvm->memslots;
>
I think you want
slots->generation = old_memslots->generation;
here.
On the
We may cache the current mmio generation number and stale memslot info
into spte, like this scenario：
CPU 0 CPU 1
page fault:add a new memslot
read memslot and detecting its a mmio access
26 matches
Mail list logo
