From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Alleviate mmu_lock hold time when we start
 dirty logging
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:59:46 -0200
Message-ID: <20121220125946.GB7750@amt.cnet>
References: <20121218162558.65a8bfd3.yoshikawa_takuya_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <20121219213037.b234f9d4f187df2132e65576@gmail.com>
 <1355931777.3224.562.camel@bling.home>
 <20121220140232.67733085.yoshikawa_takuya_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>, gleb@redhat.com,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa_takuya_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58479 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751832Ab2LTOMj (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:12:39 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121220140232.67733085.yoshikawa_takuya_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 02:02:32PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:42:57 -0700
> Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Please let me know if you can identify one of these as the culprit.
> > They're all very simple, but there's always a chance I've missed a hard
> > coding of slot numbers somewhere.  Thanks,
> 
> I identified the one:
>   commit b7f69c555ca430129b6cde81e9f0927531420c5c
>   KVM: Minor memory slot optimization
> 
> IIUC, the problem was that you did not care about the generation of
> slots which was updated by update_memslots():
> 
>   Your patch reused the old memory slots which was there before
>   doing the update for invalidating the slot, and badly, we did flush
>   shadow pages after that before doing the second update for finally
>   installing the new slot.  As a result, the generation did not change
>   from that of the invalidated one, although the ghc(gfn to hva cache)
>   might be stale.
> 
>   After that, kvm_write_guest_cached() checked if ghc should be
>   initialized by comparing ghc's generation with that old one,
>   resulting mark_page_dirty_in_slot() was called with the invalid
>   cache contents.
> 
> Although we can do something to correct the generation alone, I do not
> think such a trick is worth it because this is not a hot path.  Let's
> just revert the patch.

Agreed. No dependencies by the following patches on it?