From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wanpeng Li Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kvm: mmu: lazy collapse small sptes into large sptes Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:25:39 +0800 Message-ID: <20150414052539.GA2559@kernel> References: <1428046825-6905-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com> Reply-To: Wanpeng Li Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Xiao Guangrong , Eric Northup To: Andres Lagar-Cavilla Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:33733 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751020AbbDNFnu (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:43:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Andres, On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:05:26AM -0700, Andres Lagar-Cavilla wrote: [...] >> + if (sp->role.direct && >> + !kvm_is_reserved_pfn(pfn) && >> + PageTransCompound(pfn_to_page(pfn))) { > >Not your fault, but PageTransCompound is very unhappy naming, as it >also yields true for PageHuge. Suggestion: document this check covers >static hugetlbfs, or switch to PageCompound() check. > >A slightly bolder approach would be to refactor and reuse the nearly >identical check done in transparent_hugepage_adjust, instead of >open-coding here. In essence this code is asking for the same check, >plus the out-of-band check for static hugepages. PageCompound() check still return true for both transparent huge pages and hugetlbfs pages, !PageHuge(page) && PageTransHuge(page) check can guarantee to catch the right transparent huge pages just as my old commit e76d30e20be5fc ("mm/hwpoison: fix test for a transparent huge page"). I will send a patch to fix this. > > >> + drop_spte(kvm, sptep); >> + sptep = rmap_get_first(*rmapp, &iter); >> + need_tlb_flush = 1; >> + } else >> + sptep = rmap_get_next(&iter); >> + } >> + >> + return need_tlb_flush; >> +} >> + >> +void kvm_mmu_zap_collapsible_sptes(struct kvm *kvm, >> + struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot) >> +{ >> + bool flush = false; >> + unsigned long *rmapp; >> + unsigned long last_index, index; >> + gfn_t gfn_start, gfn_end; >> + >> + spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock); >> + >> + gfn_start = memslot->base_gfn; >> + gfn_end = memslot->base_gfn + memslot->npages - 1; >> + >> + if (gfn_start >= gfn_end) >> + goto out; > >I don't understand the value of this check here. Are we looking for a >broken memslot? Shouldn't this be a BUG_ON? Is this the place to care >about these things? npages is capped to KVM_MEM_MAX_NR_PAGES, i.e. >2^31. A 64 bit overflow would be caused by a gigantic gfn_start which >would be trouble in many other ways. > >All this to say: please remove the above 5 lines and make code simpler. I will send a patch to cleanup it. Thanks for your review. :) Regards, Wanpeng Li