From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755997Ab0EXGZg (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2010 02:25:36 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:13395 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752498Ab0EXGZf (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2010 02:25:35 -0400 Message-ID: <4BFA1BD9.5070302@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:25:29 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Fedora/3.0.4-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xiao Guangrong CC: Marcelo Tosatti , LKML , KVM list Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: MMU: allow more page become unsync at getting sp time References: <4BF91C34.6020904@cn.fujitsu.com> <4BF91C82.8050308@cn.fujitsu.com> <4BF9378B.4080703@redhat.com> <4BF9E50B.6010205@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <4BF9E50B.6010205@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/24/2010 05:31 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > > Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 05/23/2010 03:16 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >> >>> Allow more page become asynchronous at getting sp time, if need create >>> new >>> shadow page for gfn but it not allow unsync(level> 1), we should >>> unsync all >>> gfn's unsync page >>> >>> >>> >>> +/* @gfn should be write-protected at the call site */ >>> +static void kvm_sync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn) >>> +{ >>> + struct hlist_head *bucket; >>> + struct kvm_mmu_page *s; >>> + struct hlist_node *node, *n; >>> + unsigned index; >>> + bool flush = false; >>> + >>> + index = kvm_page_table_hashfn(gfn); >>> + bucket =&vcpu->kvm->arch.mmu_page_hash[index]; >>> + hlist_for_each_entry_safe(s, node, n, bucket, hash_link) { >>> >>> >> role.direct, role.invalid? >> > We only handle unsync pages here, and 'role.direct' or 'role.invalid' > pages can't become unsync. > They will be once the invlpg patch is in... > >> Well, role.direct cannot be unsync. But that's not something we want to >> rely on. >> > While we mark the unsync page, we have filtered out the 'role.direct' pages, > so, i think we not need worry 'role.direct' here. :-) > Ok. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.