From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: Debugging an inconsistent shadow page table Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:39:52 +0300 Message-ID: <20090426113952.GU24095@redhat.com> References: <49F2E79A.6070602@web.de> <49F43846.40807@redhat.com> <49F4416C.4090204@web.de> <20090426112749.GT24095@redhat.com> <49F44736.6000001@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Avi Kivity , kvm-devel To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:48416 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751721AbZDZLjy (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:39:54 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49F44736.6000001@web.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 01:36:22PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 01:11:40PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> That raise a question for a kvm-mmu newbie like me: > >> > >> If a page of the qemu process gets pushed around (here likely due to > >> fork()->exec(smbd)->COW), how will kvm's shadow table catch up? Via > >> MMU_NOTIFIER? > >> > >> I'm on a 2.6.25 kernel, and that means without CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER. So > >> far I assumed that kernels without this feature do not work optimally, > >> but they won't break my guests... > >> > > Guest memory is not COWed on fork (madvise(MADV_DONTFORK)) > > Yeah... but that's missing upstream! Will cross-check and then post a > fix for qemu. > > Out of curiosity: What's the mechanism to update the shadow table after > swap-out/swap-in? > I don't think guest memory is swappable without mmu notifiers. -- Gleb.