From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] add 2nd stage page fault handling during live
 migration
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 19:57:26 +0200
Message-ID: <20140529175726.GC62489@lvm>
References: <1400178451-4984-1-git-send-email-m.smarduch@samsung.com>
 <1400178451-4984-5-git-send-email-m.smarduch@samsung.com>
 <20140527201945.GD16428@lvm>
 <53853C2F.8080003@samsung.com>
 <20140528080957.GH16428@lvm>
 <5386232A.3050602@samsung.com>
 <20140529085134.GB61607@lvm>
 <53876977.1040502@samsung.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
	steve.capper@arm.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, gavin.guo@canonical.com,
	peter.maydell@linaro.org, jays.lee@samsung.com,
	sungjinn.chung@samsung.com
To: Mario Smarduch <m.smarduch@samsung.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]:35624 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S933419AbaE2R5c (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 May 2014 13:57:32 -0400
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id cc10so1132697wib.17
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 29 May 2014 10:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53876977.1040502@samsung.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:08:07AM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
> 
> >> So this needs to be cleared up given this is key to logging.
> >> Cases this code handles during migration -
> >> 1. huge page fault described above - write protect fault so you breakup
> >>    the huge page.
> >> 2. All other faults - first time access, pte write protect you again wind up in
> >>    stage2_set_pte().
> >>
> >> Am I missing something here?
> >>
> > 
> > no, I forgot about the fact that we can take the permission fault now.
> > Hmm, ok, so either we need to use the original approach of always
> > splitting up huge pages or we need to just follow the regular huge page
> > path here and just mark all 512 4K pages dirty in the log, or handle it
> > in stage2_set_pte().
> > 
> > I would say go with the most simple appraoch for now (which may be going
> > back to splitting all pmd_huge() into regular pte's), and we can take a
> > more careful look in the next patch iteration.
> > 
> 
> Looking at the overall memslot update architecture and various
> fail scenarios - user_mem_abort() appears to be the most
> optimal and reliable place. First Write Protect huge pages after
> memslots are committed and deal with rest in user_mem_abort().
> 
> Still need some feedback on the pud_huge() before revising for
> next iteration?
> 
Just assume it's not used for now, and that you don't have to consider
it, and make that assumption clear in the commit message, so it doesn't
block this work.  I have a feeling we need to go through a few
iterations here, so let's get that rolling.

Thanks.