mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	pbonzini@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86/mmu: Split NX hugepage recovery flow into TDP and non-TDP flow
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:57:38 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240819215738.GA2317872.vipinsh@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZsOPepvYXoWVv-_D@google.com>

On 2024-08-19 11:31:22, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024, David Matlack wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:20 AM Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2024-08-16 16:29:11, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > Why not just use separate lists?
> > >
> > > Before this patch, NX huge page recovery calculates "to_zap" and then it
> > > zaps first "to_zap" pages from the common list. This series is trying to
> > > maintain that invarient.
> 
> I wouldn't try to maintain any specific behavior in the existing code, AFAIK it's
> 100% arbitrary and wasn't written with any meaningful sophistication.  E.g. FIFO
> is little more than blindly zapping pages and hoping for the best.
> 
> > > If we use two separate lists then we have to decide how many pages
> > > should be zapped from TDP MMU and shadow MMU list. Few options I can
> > > think of:
> > >
> > > 1. Zap "to_zap" pages from both TDP MMU and shadow MMU list separately.
> > >    Effectively, this might double the work for recovery thread.
> > > 2. Try zapping "to_zap" page from one list and if there are not enough
> > >    pages to zap then zap from the other list. This can cause starvation.
> > > 3. Do half of "to_zap" from one list and another half from the other
> > >    list. This can lead to situations where only half work is being done
> > >    by the recovery worker thread.
> > >
> > > Option (1) above seems more reasonable to me.
> > 
> > I vote each should zap 1/nx_huge_pages_recovery_ratio of their
> > respective list. i.e. Calculate to_zap separately for each list.
> 
> Yeah, I don't have a better idea since this is effectively a quick and dirty
> solution to reduce guest jitter.  We can at least add a counter so that the zap
> is proportional to the number of pages on each list, e.g. this, and then do the
> necessary math in the recovery paths.
> 

Okay, I will work on v2 which creates two separate lists for NX huge
pages. Use specific counter for TDP MMU and zap based on that.

  reply	other threads:[~2024-08-19 21:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-12 17:13 [PATCH 0/2] KVM: x86/mmu: Run NX huge page recovery under MMU read lock Vipin Sharma
2024-08-12 17:13 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86/mmu: Split NX hugepage recovery flow into TDP and non-TDP flow Vipin Sharma
2024-08-16 23:29   ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-19 17:20     ` Vipin Sharma
2024-08-19 17:28       ` David Matlack
2024-08-19 18:31         ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-19 21:57           ` Vipin Sharma [this message]
2024-08-12 17:13 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86/mmu: Recover NX Huge pages belonging to TDP MMU under MMU read lock Vipin Sharma
2024-08-14  9:33   ` kernel test robot
2024-08-14 18:23     ` Vipin Sharma
2024-08-14 22:50   ` kernel test robot
2024-08-15 16:42     ` Vipin Sharma
2024-08-16 23:38   ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-19 17:34     ` Vipin Sharma
2024-08-19 22:12       ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-23 22:38         ` Vipin Sharma
2024-08-26 14:34           ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-26 19:24             ` Vipin Sharma
2024-08-26 19:51               ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-19 22:19   ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-23 19:27     ` Vipin Sharma
2024-08-23 20:45       ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-23 21:41         ` Vipin Sharma

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240819215738.GA2317872.vipinsh@google.com \
    --to=vipinsh@google.com \
    --cc=dmatlack@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome