From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752529AbaHTQ1H (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:27:07 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62082 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751625AbaHTQ1F (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:27:05 -0400
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:26:54 +0200
From: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>,
        Raghavendra KT <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Vinod Chegu <chegu_vinod@hp.com>, Hui-Zhi <hui-zhi.zhao@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] KVM: VMX: automatic PLE window maximum
Message-ID: <20140820162653.GC20453@potion.brq.redhat.com>
References: <1408480536-8240-1-git-send-email-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
 <1408480536-8240-10-git-send-email-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
 <53F44B40.6060806@redhat.com>
 <20140820124112.GC28873@potion.brq.redhat.com>
 <53F49F80.1090408@redhat.com>
 <20140820153115.GA20453@potion.brq.redhat.com>
 <53F4BFF3.3060606@redhat.com>
 <20140820160137.GB20453@potion.brq.redhat.com>
 <53F4C6D2.9050209@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <53F4C6D2.9050209@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

2014-08-20 18:03+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 20/08/2014 18:01, Radim Krčmář ha scritto:
> > 2014-08-20 17:34+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
> >> Il 20/08/2014 17:31, Radim Krčmář ha scritto:
> >>> Btw. without extra code, we are still going to overflow on races when
> >>> changing PW_grow, should they be covered as well?
> >>
> >> You mean because there is no spinlock or similar protecting the changes?
> >>  I guess you could use a seqlock.
> > 
> > Yes, for example between a modification of ple_window
> >   new = min(old, PW_actual_max) * PW_grow
> > which gets compiled into something like this:
> >   1) tmp = min(old, PW_actual_max)
> >   2) new = tmp * PW_grow
> > and a write to increase PW_grow
> >   3) PW_actual_max = min(PW_max / new_PW_grow, PW_actual_max)
> >   4) PW_grow = new_PW_grow
> >   5) PW_actual_max = PW_max / new_PW_grow
> > 
> > 3 and 4 can exectute between 1 and 2, which could overflow.
> > 
> > I don't think they are important enough to warrant a significant
> > performance hit of locking.
> 
> A seqlock just costs two memory accesses to the same (shared) cache line
> as the PW data, and a non-taken branch.

Oh, seqlock readers do not have to write to shared memory, so it is
acceptable ...

>                                         I don't like code that is
> unsafe by design...

I wouldn't say it is unsafe, because VCPU's PW is always greater than
module's PW. We are just going to PLE exit sooner than expected.