Re: [PATCH v3 07/15] KVM: MMU: introduce nulls desc

Marcelo Tosatti
2013-12-05T15:06:40Z

GOn Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 03:10:48PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 11/28/2013 04:53 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > On 11/27/2013 03:31 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:21:37AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >>> On 11/26/2013 02:12 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 02:29:03PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >>>>>>> Also, there is no guarantee of termination (as long as sptes are
> >>>>>>> deleted with the correct timing). BTW, can't see any guarantee of
> >>>>>>> termination for rculist nulls either (a writer can race with a lockless
> >>>>>>> reader indefinately, restarting the lockless walk every time).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hmm, that can be avoided by checking dirty-bitmap before rewalk,
> >>>>>> that means, if the dirty-bitmap has been set during lockless write-protection,
> >>>>>> it�s unnecessary to write-protect its sptes. Your idea?
> >>>>> This idea is based on the fact that the number of rmap is limited by
> >>>>> RMAP_RECYCLE_THRESHOLD. So, in the case of adding new spte into rmap,
> >>>>> we can break the rewalk at once, in the case of deleting, we can only
> >>>>> rewalk RMAP_RECYCLE_THRESHOLD times.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please explain in more detail.
> >>>
> >>> Okay.
> >>>
> >>> My proposal is like this:
> >>>
> >>> pte_list_walk_lockless()
> >>> {
> >>> restart:
> >>>
> >>> + if (__test_bit(slot->arch.dirty_bitmap, gfn-index))
> >>> + return;
> >>>
> >>> code-doing-lockless-walking;
> >>> ......
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Before do lockless-walking, we check the dirty-bitmap first, if
> >>> it is set we can simply skip write-protection for the gfn, that
> >>> is the case that new spte is being added into rmap when we lockless
> >>> access the rmap.
> >>
> >> The dirty bit could be set after the check.
> >>
> >>> For the case of deleting spte from rmap, the number of entry is limited
> >>> by RMAP_RECYCLE_THRESHOLD, that is not endlessly.
> >>
> >> It can shrink and grow while lockless walk is performed.
> >
> > Yes, indeed.
> >
> > Hmmm, another idea in my mind to fix this is encoding the position into
> > the reserved bits of desc->more pointer, for example:
> >
> > +------+ +------+ +------+
> > rmapp -> |Desc 0| -> |Desc 1| -> |Desc 2|
> > +------+ +------+ +------+
> >
> > There are 3 descs on the rmap, and:
> > rmapp = &desc0 | 1UL | 3UL << 50;
> > desc0->more = desc1 | 2UL << 50;
> > desc1->more = desc0 | 1UL << 50
> > desc2->more = &rmapp | 1UL; (The nulls pointer)
> >
> > We will walk to the next desc only if the "position" of current desc
> > is >= the position of next desc. That can make sure we can reach the
> > last desc anyway.
> >
> > And in order to avoiding doing too many "rewalk", we will goto the
> > slow path (do walk with holding the lock) instead when retry the walk
> > more that N times.
>
> How about this idea? Or you guys still prefer to the idea of lockless on
> first-level?

Xiao,

Is it not the case that simply moving to the slow path once a maximum of
rewalks has been reached enough? (looks a like a good solution).

Please move lockless rcu walking code to generic code where it belongs.