From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
Cc: Chris Lalancette <clalance@redhat.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH]: Fix Xen domU boot with batched mprotect
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:23:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48F61919.2050005@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48F6274D.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> Chris Lalancette <clalance@redhat.com> 15.10.08 13:03 >>>
>>>>
>> The right thing to do is to use arbitrary_virt_to_machine, so that we can be
>> sure we are modifying the right pfn. This unfortunately introduces a
>> performance penalty because of a full page-table-walk, but we can avoid that
>> penalty for pages in the p2m list by checking if virt_addr_valid is true, and if
>> so, just doing the lookup in the p2m table.
>>
>
> Could you explain how virt_addr_valid() can validly be used here? Looking
> at its implementation
>
> #define virt_addr_valid(kaddr) pfn_valid(__pa(kaddr) >> PAGE_SHIFT)
>
> a kaddr in kmap space (i.e. above high_memory) would return a bogus
> physical address, and hence pfn_valid() on the resulting pfn is meaningless.
>
virt_addr_valid() is supposed to be usable in this circumstace. The
comment says "virt_to_page(kaddr) returns a valid pointer if and only if
virt_addr_valid(kaddr) returns true", which implies that
virt_addr_valid() returns a meaningful result on all addresses - and if
not, it should be fixed.
> I'd instead simply compare the address in question against high_memory,
> and perhaps instead of in arbitrary_virt_to_machine() in
> ptep_modify_prot_commit() under an #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHPTE.
I suppose, but I don't think there's much cost in making it generally
robust.
> But
> performance-wise, CONFIG_HIGHPTE sucks under Xen anyway, so you'd
> better not turn this on in the first place. We may want/need to provide
> a means to disable this at run time so the same kernel when run natively
> could still make use of it, but without impacting performance under Xen.
>
That's a secondary issue. What's the source of the performance hit?
Just all the extra kmap_atomic operations?
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-15 16:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-15 11:03 [PATCH]: Fix Xen domU boot with batched mprotect Chris Lalancette
2008-10-15 15:24 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2008-10-15 16:23 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2008-10-16 7:28 ` Jan Beulich
2008-10-16 9:58 ` Jan Beulich
2008-10-16 16:10 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-10-17 7:12 ` Jan Beulich
2008-10-17 15:19 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-10-17 15:30 ` Jan Beulich
2008-10-17 15:36 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48F61919.2050005@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=clalance@redhat.com \
--cc=jbeulich@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox