From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753593Ab2D2IuL (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:50:11 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f51.google.com ([209.85.210.51]:41455 "EHLO mail-pz0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752619Ab2D2IuJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:50:09 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:50:04 +0900 From: Takuya Yoshikawa To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Xiao Guangrong , Avi Kivity , LKML , KVM Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] KVM: MMU: fast path of handling guest page fault Message-Id: <20120429175004.b54d8c095a60d98c8cdbc942@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120427145213.GB28796@amt.cnet> References: <4F9776D2.7020506@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F9777A4.208@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120426234535.GA5057@amt.cnet> <4F9A3445.2060305@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120427145213.GB28796@amt.cnet> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0beta3 (GTK+ 2.24.6; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:52:13 -0300 Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > Yes but the objective you are aiming for is to read and write sptes > without mmu_lock. That is, i am not talking about this patch. > Please read carefully the two examples i gave (separated by "example)"). The real objective is not still clear. The ~10% improvement reported before was on macro benchmarks during live migration. At least, that optimization was the initial objective. But at some point, the objective suddenly changed to "lock-less" without understanding what introduced the original improvement. Was the problem really mmu_lock contention? If the path being introduced by this patch is really fast, isn't it possible to achieve the same improvement still using mmu_lock? Note: During live migration, the fact that the guest gets faulted is itself a limitation. We could easily see noticeable slowdown of a program even if it runs only between two GET_DIRTY_LOGs. > The rules for code under mmu_lock should be: > > 1) Spte updates under mmu lock must always be atomic and > with locked instructions. > 2) Spte values must be read once, and appropriate action > must be taken when writing them back in case their value > has changed (remote TLB flush might be required). Although I am not certain about what will be really needed in the final form, if this kind of maybe-needed-overhead is going to be added little by little, I worry about possible regression. Thanks, Takuya