From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 19:57:26 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v6 4/4] add 2nd stage page fault handling during live
 migration
In-Reply-To: <53876977.1040502@samsung.com>
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>
Message-ID: <20140529175726.GC62489@lvm>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.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.