* [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fixes and batching @ 2011-05-03 18:36 Alex Williamson 2011-05-03 18:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fix typo in phys memory client registration Alex Williamson ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-03 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qemu-devel, anthony; +Cc: jan.kiszka, alex.williamson, armbru, mst This series pulls together several related patches for bugs and performance that I found last week. Only the 2nd patch is actually modified from inital posting, adding the comments suggested by Markus. The 1st two patches fix pretty serious brokeness in the CPUPhysMemoryClient interface. Of the two current users, kvm and vhost, only vhost is actually affected by these bugs. Please apply. Thanks, Alex --- Alex Williamson (3): CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup CPUPhysMemoryClient: Pass guest physical address not region offset CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fix typo in phys memory client registration exec.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fix typo in phys memory client registration 2011-05-03 18:36 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fixes and batching Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-03 18:36 ` Alex Williamson 2011-05-03 18:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Pass guest physical address not region offset Alex Williamson ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-03 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qemu-devel, anthony; +Cc: jan.kiszka, alex.williamson, armbru, mst When we register a physical memory client, we try to walk the page tables, calling the set_memory hook for every entry. Effectively playing catchup for the client for everything already registered. With this type, we only walk the 2nd entry of the l1 table, typically missing all of the registered memory. Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> --- exec.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c index c3dc68a..8790ad8 100644 --- a/exec.c +++ b/exec.c @@ -1770,7 +1770,7 @@ static void phys_page_for_each(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client) int i; for (i = 0; i < P_L1_SIZE; ++i) { phys_page_for_each_1(client, P_L1_SHIFT / L2_BITS - 1, - l1_phys_map + 1); + l1_phys_map + i); } } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Pass guest physical address not region offset 2011-05-03 18:36 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fixes and batching Alex Williamson 2011-05-03 18:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fix typo in phys memory client registration Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-03 18:36 ` Alex Williamson 2011-05-03 18:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup Alex Williamson 2011-05-05 13:21 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fixes and batching Michael S. Tsirkin 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-03 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qemu-devel, anthony; +Cc: jan.kiszka, alex.williamson, armbru, mst When we're trying to get a newly registered phys memory client updated with the current page mappings, we end up passing the region offset (a ram_addr_t) as the start address rather than the actual guest physical memory address (target_phys_addr_t). If your guest has less than 3.5G of memory, these are coincidentally the same thing. If there's more, the region offset for the memory above 4G starts over at 0, so the set_memory client will overwrite it's lower memory entries. Instead, keep track of the guest phsyical address as we're walking the tables and pass that to the set_memory client. Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> --- exec.c | 16 ++++++++++++---- 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c index 8790ad8..bbd5c86 100644 --- a/exec.c +++ b/exec.c @@ -1741,8 +1741,14 @@ static int cpu_notify_migration_log(int enable) return 0; } +/* The l1_phys_map provides the upper P_L1_BITs of the guest physical + * address. Each intermediate table provides the next L2_BITs of guest + * physical address space. The number of levels vary based on host and + * guest configuration, making it efficient to build the final guest + * physical address by seeding the L1 offset and shifting and adding in + * each L2 offset as we recurse through them. */ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, - int level, void **lp) + int level, void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr) { int i; @@ -1751,16 +1757,18 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, } if (level == 0) { PhysPageDesc *pd = *lp; + addr <<= L2_BITS + TARGET_PAGE_BITS; for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { if (pd[i].phys_offset != IO_MEM_UNASSIGNED) { - client->set_memory(client, pd[i].region_offset, + client->set_memory(client, addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS, TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, pd[i].phys_offset); } } } else { void **pp = *lp; for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { - phys_page_for_each_1(client, level - 1, pp + i); + phys_page_for_each_1(client, level - 1, pp + i, + (addr << L2_BITS) | i); } } } @@ -1770,7 +1778,7 @@ static void phys_page_for_each(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client) int i; for (i = 0; i < P_L1_SIZE; ++i) { phys_page_for_each_1(client, P_L1_SHIFT / L2_BITS - 1, - l1_phys_map + i); + l1_phys_map + i, i); } } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-03 18:36 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fixes and batching Alex Williamson 2011-05-03 18:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fix typo in phys memory client registration Alex Williamson 2011-05-03 18:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Pass guest physical address not region offset Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-03 18:36 ` Alex Williamson 2011-05-05 13:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-05 13:21 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fixes and batching Michael S. Tsirkin 3 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-03 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: qemu-devel, anthony; +Cc: jan.kiszka, alex.williamson, armbru, mst When a phys memory client registers and we play catchup by walking the page tables, we can make a huge improvement in the number of times the set_memory callback is called by batching contiguous pages together. With a 4G guest, this reduces the number of callbacks at registration from 1048866 to 296. Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> --- exec.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c index bbd5c86..a0678a4 100644 --- a/exec.c +++ b/exec.c @@ -1741,14 +1741,21 @@ static int cpu_notify_migration_log(int enable) return 0; } +struct last_map { + target_phys_addr_t start_addr; + ram_addr_t size; + ram_addr_t phys_offset; +}; + /* The l1_phys_map provides the upper P_L1_BITs of the guest physical * address. Each intermediate table provides the next L2_BITs of guest * physical address space. The number of levels vary based on host and * guest configuration, making it efficient to build the final guest * physical address by seeding the L1 offset and shifting and adding in * each L2 offset as we recurse through them. */ -static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, - int level, void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr) +static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, int level, + void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr, + struct last_map *map) { int i; @@ -1760,15 +1767,29 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, addr <<= L2_BITS + TARGET_PAGE_BITS; for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { if (pd[i].phys_offset != IO_MEM_UNASSIGNED) { - client->set_memory(client, addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS, - TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, pd[i].phys_offset); + target_phys_addr_t start_addr = addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS; + + if (map->size && + start_addr == map->start_addr + map->size && + pd[i].phys_offset == map->phys_offset + map->size) { + + map->size += TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; + continue; + } else if (map->size) { + client->set_memory(client, map->start_addr, + map->size, map->phys_offset); + } + + map->start_addr = start_addr; + map->size = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; + map->phys_offset = pd[i].phys_offset; } } } else { void **pp = *lp; for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { phys_page_for_each_1(client, level - 1, pp + i, - (addr << L2_BITS) | i); + (addr << L2_BITS) | i, map); } } } @@ -1776,9 +1797,14 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, static void phys_page_for_each(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client) { int i; + struct last_map map = { 0 }; + for (i = 0; i < P_L1_SIZE; ++i) { phys_page_for_each_1(client, P_L1_SHIFT / L2_BITS - 1, - l1_phys_map + i, i); + l1_phys_map + i, i, &map); + } + if (map.size) { + client->set_memory(client, map.start_addr, map.size, map.phys_offset); } } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-03 18:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-05 13:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-05 14:21 ` Alex Williamson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-05-05 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Williamson; +Cc: jan.kiszka, qemu-devel, armbru On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:36:58PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > When a phys memory client registers and we play catchup by walking > the page tables, we can make a huge improvement in the number of > times the set_memory callback is called by batching contiguous > pages together. With a 4G guest, this reduces the number of callbacks > at registration from 1048866 to 296. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> > --- > > exec.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c > index bbd5c86..a0678a4 100644 > --- a/exec.c > +++ b/exec.c > @@ -1741,14 +1741,21 @@ static int cpu_notify_migration_log(int enable) > return 0; > } > > +struct last_map { > + target_phys_addr_t start_addr; > + ram_addr_t size; A bit worried that ram_addr_t size might thinkably overflow (it's just a long, could be a 4G ram). Break it out when it fills up? > + ram_addr_t phys_offset; > +}; > + > /* The l1_phys_map provides the upper P_L1_BITs of the guest physical > * address. Each intermediate table provides the next L2_BITs of guest > * physical address space. The number of levels vary based on host and > * guest configuration, making it efficient to build the final guest > * physical address by seeding the L1 offset and shifting and adding in > * each L2 offset as we recurse through them. */ > -static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > - int level, void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr) > +static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, int level, > + void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr, > + struct last_map *map) > { > int i; > > @@ -1760,15 +1767,29 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > addr <<= L2_BITS + TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { > if (pd[i].phys_offset != IO_MEM_UNASSIGNED) { > - client->set_memory(client, addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS, > - TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, pd[i].phys_offset); > + target_phys_addr_t start_addr = addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > + > + if (map->size && > + start_addr == map->start_addr + map->size && > + pd[i].phys_offset == map->phys_offset + map->size) { > + > + map->size += TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; > + continue; > + } else if (map->size) { > + client->set_memory(client, map->start_addr, > + map->size, map->phys_offset); > + } > + > + map->start_addr = start_addr; > + map->size = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; > + map->phys_offset = pd[i].phys_offset; > } > } > } else { > void **pp = *lp; > for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { > phys_page_for_each_1(client, level - 1, pp + i, > - (addr << L2_BITS) | i); > + (addr << L2_BITS) | i, map); > } > } > } > @@ -1776,9 +1797,14 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > static void phys_page_for_each(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client) > { > int i; > + struct last_map map = { 0 }; > + Nit: just {} is enough. > for (i = 0; i < P_L1_SIZE; ++i) { > phys_page_for_each_1(client, P_L1_SHIFT / L2_BITS - 1, > - l1_phys_map + i, i); > + l1_phys_map + i, i, &map); > + } > + if (map.size) { > + client->set_memory(client, map.start_addr, map.size, map.phys_offset); > } > } > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-05 13:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-05-05 14:21 ` Alex Williamson 2011-05-05 14:30 ` Jes Sorensen 2011-05-05 15:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-05 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: jan.kiszka, qemu-devel, armbru On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 16:21 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:36:58PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > When a phys memory client registers and we play catchup by walking > > the page tables, we can make a huge improvement in the number of > > times the set_memory callback is called by batching contiguous > > pages together. With a 4G guest, this reduces the number of callbacks > > at registration from 1048866 to 296. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> > > --- > > > > exec.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > 1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c > > index bbd5c86..a0678a4 100644 > > --- a/exec.c > > +++ b/exec.c > > @@ -1741,14 +1741,21 @@ static int cpu_notify_migration_log(int enable) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +struct last_map { > > + target_phys_addr_t start_addr; > > + ram_addr_t size; > > A bit worried that ram_addr_t size might thinkably overflow > (it's just a long, could be a 4G ram). Break it out when it fills up? struct CPUPhysMemoryClient { void (*set_memory)(struct CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, target_phys_addr_t start_addr, ram_addr_t size, ram_addr_t phys_offset); ram_addr_t seems to be the standard for describing these types of things. It's an unsigned long, so 4G is only concern for 32b builds, which don't support that much memory anyway. Please apply. Thanks, Alex > > + ram_addr_t phys_offset; > > +}; > > + > > /* The l1_phys_map provides the upper P_L1_BITs of the guest physical > > * address. Each intermediate table provides the next L2_BITs of guest > > * physical address space. The number of levels vary based on host and > > * guest configuration, making it efficient to build the final guest > > * physical address by seeding the L1 offset and shifting and adding in > > * each L2 offset as we recurse through them. */ > > -static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > - int level, void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr) > > +static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, int level, > > + void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr, > > + struct last_map *map) > > { > > int i; > > > > @@ -1760,15 +1767,29 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > addr <<= L2_BITS + TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > > for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { > > if (pd[i].phys_offset != IO_MEM_UNASSIGNED) { > > - client->set_memory(client, addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS, > > - TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, pd[i].phys_offset); > > + target_phys_addr_t start_addr = addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > > + > > + if (map->size && > > + start_addr == map->start_addr + map->size && > > + pd[i].phys_offset == map->phys_offset + map->size) { > > + > > + map->size += TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; > > + continue; > > + } else if (map->size) { > > + client->set_memory(client, map->start_addr, > > + map->size, map->phys_offset); > > + } > > + > > + map->start_addr = start_addr; > > + map->size = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; > > + map->phys_offset = pd[i].phys_offset; > > } > > } > > } else { > > void **pp = *lp; > > for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { > > phys_page_for_each_1(client, level - 1, pp + i, > > - (addr << L2_BITS) | i); > > + (addr << L2_BITS) | i, map); > > } > > } > > } > > @@ -1776,9 +1797,14 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > static void phys_page_for_each(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client) > > { > > int i; > > + struct last_map map = { 0 }; > > + > > Nit: just {} is enough. > > > for (i = 0; i < P_L1_SIZE; ++i) { > > phys_page_for_each_1(client, P_L1_SHIFT / L2_BITS - 1, > > - l1_phys_map + i, i); > > + l1_phys_map + i, i, &map); > > + } > > + if (map.size) { > > + client->set_memory(client, map.start_addr, map.size, map.phys_offset); > > } > > } > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-05 14:21 ` Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-05 14:30 ` Jes Sorensen 2011-05-05 15:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-05 15:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Jes Sorensen @ 2011-05-05 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Williamson; +Cc: jan.kiszka, qemu-devel, armbru, Michael S. Tsirkin On 05/05/11 16:21, Alex Williamson wrote: >> > A bit worried that ram_addr_t size might thinkably overflow >> > (it's just a long, could be a 4G ram). Break it out when it fills up? > struct CPUPhysMemoryClient { > void (*set_memory)(struct CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > target_phys_addr_t start_addr, > ram_addr_t size, > ram_addr_t phys_offset); > > ram_addr_t seems to be the standard for describing these types of > things. It's an unsigned long, so 4G is only concern for 32b builds, > which don't support that much memory anyway. Please apply. Thanks, A memory size can obviously not be bigger than the maximum physical address, so I find it really hard to see how this could overflow. It seems fair to use it for the size here. Acked-by: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-05 14:30 ` Jes Sorensen @ 2011-05-05 15:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-05 15:36 ` Jes Sorensen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-05-05 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jes Sorensen; +Cc: jan.kiszka, Alex Williamson, qemu-devel, armbru On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 04:30:57PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 05/05/11 16:21, Alex Williamson wrote: > >> > A bit worried that ram_addr_t size might thinkably overflow > >> > (it's just a long, could be a 4G ram). Break it out when it fills up? > > struct CPUPhysMemoryClient { > > void (*set_memory)(struct CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > target_phys_addr_t start_addr, > > ram_addr_t size, > > ram_addr_t phys_offset); > > > > ram_addr_t seems to be the standard for describing these types of > > things. It's an unsigned long, so 4G is only concern for 32b builds, > > which don't support that much memory anyway. Please apply. Thanks, > > A memory size can obviously not be bigger than the maximum physical > address, so I find it really hard to see how this could overflow. For example, a 4G size does not fit in 32 bits. > It seems fair to use it for the size here. > > Acked-by: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-05 15:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-05-05 15:36 ` Jes Sorensen 2011-05-05 15:38 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Jes Sorensen @ 2011-05-05 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: jan.kiszka, Alex Williamson, qemu-devel, armbru On 05/05/11 17:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > A memory size can obviously not be bigger than the maximum physical >> > address, so I find it really hard to see how this could overflow. > For example, a 4G size does not fit in 32 bits. That is the only corner case - you can handle that by -1 if you like. Jes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-05 15:36 ` Jes Sorensen @ 2011-05-05 15:38 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-05 15:40 ` Jes Sorensen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-05-05 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jes Sorensen; +Cc: jan.kiszka, Alex Williamson, qemu-devel, armbru On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 05:36:04PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 05/05/11 17:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> > A memory size can obviously not be bigger than the maximum physical > >> > address, so I find it really hard to see how this could overflow. > > For example, a 4G size does not fit in 32 bits. > > That is the only corner case True. > you can handle that by -1 if you like. But then all users need to be updated. Seems easier to break out of the loop easier. It's likely not a real problem, certainly not on a pc, don't know about other systems. > Jes > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-05 15:38 ` Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-05-05 15:40 ` Jes Sorensen 2011-05-05 15:41 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Jes Sorensen @ 2011-05-05 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: jan.kiszka, Alex Williamson, qemu-devel, armbru On 05/05/11 17:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 05:36:04PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> > On 05/05/11 17:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> > >> > A memory size can obviously not be bigger than the maximum physical >>>>> > >> > address, so I find it really hard to see how this could overflow. >>> > > For example, a 4G size does not fit in 32 bits. >> > >> > That is the only corner case > True. > >> > you can handle that by -1 if you like. > But then all users need to be updated. > Seems easier to break out of the loop easier. > It's likely not a real problem, certainly not on a pc, > don't know about other systems. I think it is quite fair to limit the amount of memory we support when running 32 bit qemu binaries. I would expect more things to break than just this if we tried to support 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit host. Cheers, Jes ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-05 15:40 ` Jes Sorensen @ 2011-05-05 15:41 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-05-05 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jes Sorensen; +Cc: jan.kiszka, Alex Williamson, qemu-devel, armbru On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 05:40:19PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 05/05/11 17:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 05:36:04PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >> > On 05/05/11 17:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>>> > >> > A memory size can obviously not be bigger than the maximum physical > >>>>> > >> > address, so I find it really hard to see how this could overflow. > >>> > > For example, a 4G size does not fit in 32 bits. > >> > > >> > That is the only corner case > > True. > > > >> > you can handle that by -1 if you like. > > But then all users need to be updated. > > Seems easier to break out of the loop easier. > > It's likely not a real problem, certainly not on a pc, > > don't know about other systems. > > I think it is quite fair to limit the amount of memory we support when > running 32 bit qemu binaries. I would expect more things to break than > just this if we tried to support 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit host. > > Cheers, > Jes Fair enough. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-05 14:21 ` Alex Williamson 2011-05-05 14:30 ` Jes Sorensen @ 2011-05-05 15:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-25 3:47 ` Alex Williamson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-05-05 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Williamson; +Cc: jan.kiszka, qemu-devel, armbru On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:21:06AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 16:21 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:36:58PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > When a phys memory client registers and we play catchup by walking > > > the page tables, we can make a huge improvement in the number of > > > times the set_memory callback is called by batching contiguous > > > pages together. With a 4G guest, this reduces the number of callbacks > > > at registration from 1048866 to 296. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > > > > exec.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > 1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c > > > index bbd5c86..a0678a4 100644 > > > --- a/exec.c > > > +++ b/exec.c > > > @@ -1741,14 +1741,21 @@ static int cpu_notify_migration_log(int enable) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +struct last_map { > > > + target_phys_addr_t start_addr; > > > + ram_addr_t size; > > > > A bit worried that ram_addr_t size might thinkably overflow > > (it's just a long, could be a 4G ram). Break it out when it fills up? > > struct CPUPhysMemoryClient { > void (*set_memory)(struct CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > target_phys_addr_t start_addr, > ram_addr_t size, > ram_addr_t phys_offset); > > ram_addr_t seems to be the standard for describing these types of > things. It's an unsigned long, so 4G is only concern for 32b builds, > which don't support that much memory anyway. Please apply. Thanks, > > Alex OK, I don't think it's a problem in practice. I dislike the use of _addr for sizes, we should have _size_t, but that's a separate problem, this patch is consistent. I'll give people a bit of time to review and reply though, there seems to be no rush. > > > + ram_addr_t phys_offset; > > > +}; > > > + > > > /* The l1_phys_map provides the upper P_L1_BITs of the guest physical > > > * address. Each intermediate table provides the next L2_BITs of guest > > > * physical address space. The number of levels vary based on host and > > > * guest configuration, making it efficient to build the final guest > > > * physical address by seeding the L1 offset and shifting and adding in > > > * each L2 offset as we recurse through them. */ > > > -static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > > - int level, void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr) > > > +static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, int level, > > > + void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr, > > > + struct last_map *map) > > > { > > > int i; > > > > > > @@ -1760,15 +1767,29 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > > addr <<= L2_BITS + TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > > > for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { > > > if (pd[i].phys_offset != IO_MEM_UNASSIGNED) { > > > - client->set_memory(client, addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS, > > > - TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, pd[i].phys_offset); > > > + target_phys_addr_t start_addr = addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > > > + > > > + if (map->size && > > > + start_addr == map->start_addr + map->size && > > > + pd[i].phys_offset == map->phys_offset + map->size) { > > > + > > > + map->size += TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; > > > + continue; > > > + } else if (map->size) { > > > + client->set_memory(client, map->start_addr, > > > + map->size, map->phys_offset); > > > + } > > > + > > > + map->start_addr = start_addr; > > > + map->size = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; > > > + map->phys_offset = pd[i].phys_offset; > > > } > > > } > > > } else { > > > void **pp = *lp; > > > for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { > > > phys_page_for_each_1(client, level - 1, pp + i, > > > - (addr << L2_BITS) | i); > > > + (addr << L2_BITS) | i, map); > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > @@ -1776,9 +1797,14 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > > static void phys_page_for_each(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client) > > > { > > > int i; > > > + struct last_map map = { 0 }; > > > + > > > > Nit: just {} is enough. > > > > > for (i = 0; i < P_L1_SIZE; ++i) { > > > phys_page_for_each_1(client, P_L1_SHIFT / L2_BITS - 1, > > > - l1_phys_map + i, i); > > > + l1_phys_map + i, i, &map); > > > + } > > > + if (map.size) { > > > + client->set_memory(client, map.start_addr, map.size, map.phys_offset); > > > } > > > } > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-05 15:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-05-25 3:47 ` Alex Williamson 2011-05-25 6:08 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-25 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: jan.kiszka, qemu-devel, armbru On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:21 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:21:06AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 16:21 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:36:58PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > When a phys memory client registers and we play catchup by walking > > > > the page tables, we can make a huge improvement in the number of > > > > times the set_memory callback is called by batching contiguous > > > > pages together. With a 4G guest, this reduces the number of callbacks > > > > at registration from 1048866 to 296. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > exec.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > > 1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c > > > > index bbd5c86..a0678a4 100644 > > > > --- a/exec.c > > > > +++ b/exec.c > > > > @@ -1741,14 +1741,21 @@ static int cpu_notify_migration_log(int enable) > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > +struct last_map { > > > > + target_phys_addr_t start_addr; > > > > + ram_addr_t size; > > > > > > A bit worried that ram_addr_t size might thinkably overflow > > > (it's just a long, could be a 4G ram). Break it out when it fills up? > > > > struct CPUPhysMemoryClient { > > void (*set_memory)(struct CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > target_phys_addr_t start_addr, > > ram_addr_t size, > > ram_addr_t phys_offset); > > > > ram_addr_t seems to be the standard for describing these types of > > things. It's an unsigned long, so 4G is only concern for 32b builds, > > which don't support that much memory anyway. Please apply. Thanks, > > > > Alex > > OK, I don't think it's a problem in practice. > I dislike the use of _addr for sizes, we should > have _size_t, but that's a separate problem, > this patch is consistent. > > I'll give people a bit of time to review and reply though, > there seems to be no rush. Bump. I didn't see anything come out of the discussion that would suggest a respin. Please apply. Thanks, Alex > > > > + ram_addr_t phys_offset; > > > > +}; > > > > + > > > > /* The l1_phys_map provides the upper P_L1_BITs of the guest physical > > > > * address. Each intermediate table provides the next L2_BITs of guest > > > > * physical address space. The number of levels vary based on host and > > > > * guest configuration, making it efficient to build the final guest > > > > * physical address by seeding the L1 offset and shifting and adding in > > > > * each L2 offset as we recurse through them. */ > > > > -static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > > > - int level, void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr) > > > > +static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, int level, > > > > + void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr, > > > > + struct last_map *map) > > > > { > > > > int i; > > > > > > > > @@ -1760,15 +1767,29 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > > > addr <<= L2_BITS + TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > > > > for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { > > > > if (pd[i].phys_offset != IO_MEM_UNASSIGNED) { > > > > - client->set_memory(client, addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS, > > > > - TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, pd[i].phys_offset); > > > > + target_phys_addr_t start_addr = addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > > > > + > > > > + if (map->size && > > > > + start_addr == map->start_addr + map->size && > > > > + pd[i].phys_offset == map->phys_offset + map->size) { > > > > + > > > > + map->size += TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; > > > > + continue; > > > > + } else if (map->size) { > > > > + client->set_memory(client, map->start_addr, > > > > + map->size, map->phys_offset); > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + map->start_addr = start_addr; > > > > + map->size = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; > > > > + map->phys_offset = pd[i].phys_offset; > > > > } > > > > } > > > > } else { > > > > void **pp = *lp; > > > > for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { > > > > phys_page_for_each_1(client, level - 1, pp + i, > > > > - (addr << L2_BITS) | i); > > > > + (addr << L2_BITS) | i, map); > > > > } > > > > } > > > > } > > > > @@ -1776,9 +1797,14 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > > > static void phys_page_for_each(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client) > > > > { > > > > int i; > > > > + struct last_map map = { 0 }; > > > > + > > > > > > Nit: just {} is enough. > > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < P_L1_SIZE; ++i) { > > > > phys_page_for_each_1(client, P_L1_SHIFT / L2_BITS - 1, > > > > - l1_phys_map + i, i); > > > > + l1_phys_map + i, i, &map); > > > > + } > > > > + if (map.size) { > > > > + client->set_memory(client, map.start_addr, map.size, map.phys_offset); > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup 2011-05-25 3:47 ` Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-25 6:08 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-05-25 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Williamson; +Cc: jan.kiszka, qemu-devel, armbru On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:47:57PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:21 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:21:06AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 16:21 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:36:58PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > > When a phys memory client registers and we play catchup by walking > > > > > the page tables, we can make a huge improvement in the number of > > > > > times the set_memory callback is called by batching contiguous > > > > > pages together. With a 4G guest, this reduces the number of callbacks > > > > > at registration from 1048866 to 296. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > exec.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > > > 1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c > > > > > index bbd5c86..a0678a4 100644 > > > > > --- a/exec.c > > > > > +++ b/exec.c > > > > > @@ -1741,14 +1741,21 @@ static int cpu_notify_migration_log(int enable) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > +struct last_map { > > > > > + target_phys_addr_t start_addr; > > > > > + ram_addr_t size; > > > > > > > > A bit worried that ram_addr_t size might thinkably overflow > > > > (it's just a long, could be a 4G ram). Break it out when it fills up? > > > > > > struct CPUPhysMemoryClient { > > > void (*set_memory)(struct CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > > target_phys_addr_t start_addr, > > > ram_addr_t size, > > > ram_addr_t phys_offset); > > > > > > ram_addr_t seems to be the standard for describing these types of > > > things. It's an unsigned long, so 4G is only concern for 32b builds, > > > which don't support that much memory anyway. Please apply. Thanks, > > > > > > Alex > > > > OK, I don't think it's a problem in practice. > > I dislike the use of _addr for sizes, we should > > have _size_t, but that's a separate problem, > > this patch is consistent. > > > > I'll give people a bit of time to review and reply though, > > there seems to be no rush. > > Bump. I didn't see anything come out of the discussion that would > suggest a respin. Please apply. Thanks, > > Alex Applied. Thanks, > > > > > + ram_addr_t phys_offset; > > > > > +}; > > > > > + > > > > > /* The l1_phys_map provides the upper P_L1_BITs of the guest physical > > > > > * address. Each intermediate table provides the next L2_BITs of guest > > > > > * physical address space. The number of levels vary based on host and > > > > > * guest configuration, making it efficient to build the final guest > > > > > * physical address by seeding the L1 offset and shifting and adding in > > > > > * each L2 offset as we recurse through them. */ > > > > > -static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > > > > - int level, void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr) > > > > > +static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, int level, > > > > > + void **lp, target_phys_addr_t addr, > > > > > + struct last_map *map) > > > > > { > > > > > int i; > > > > > > > > > > @@ -1760,15 +1767,29 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > > > > addr <<= L2_BITS + TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > > > > > for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { > > > > > if (pd[i].phys_offset != IO_MEM_UNASSIGNED) { > > > > > - client->set_memory(client, addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS, > > > > > - TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, pd[i].phys_offset); > > > > > + target_phys_addr_t start_addr = addr | i << TARGET_PAGE_BITS; > > > > > + > > > > > + if (map->size && > > > > > + start_addr == map->start_addr + map->size && > > > > > + pd[i].phys_offset == map->phys_offset + map->size) { > > > > > + > > > > > + map->size += TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; > > > > > + continue; > > > > > + } else if (map->size) { > > > > > + client->set_memory(client, map->start_addr, > > > > > + map->size, map->phys_offset); > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + map->start_addr = start_addr; > > > > > + map->size = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE; > > > > > + map->phys_offset = pd[i].phys_offset; > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > } else { > > > > > void **pp = *lp; > > > > > for (i = 0; i < L2_SIZE; ++i) { > > > > > phys_page_for_each_1(client, level - 1, pp + i, > > > > > - (addr << L2_BITS) | i); > > > > > + (addr << L2_BITS) | i, map); > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > @@ -1776,9 +1797,14 @@ static void phys_page_for_each_1(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client, > > > > > static void phys_page_for_each(CPUPhysMemoryClient *client) > > > > > { > > > > > int i; > > > > > + struct last_map map = { 0 }; > > > > > + > > > > > > > > Nit: just {} is enough. > > > > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < P_L1_SIZE; ++i) { > > > > > phys_page_for_each_1(client, P_L1_SHIFT / L2_BITS - 1, > > > > > - l1_phys_map + i, i); > > > > > + l1_phys_map + i, i, &map); > > > > > + } > > > > > + if (map.size) { > > > > > + client->set_memory(client, map.start_addr, map.size, map.phys_offset); > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fixes and batching 2011-05-03 18:36 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fixes and batching Alex Williamson ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2011-05-03 18:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup Alex Williamson @ 2011-05-05 13:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2011-05-05 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alex Williamson; +Cc: jan.kiszka, qemu-devel, armbru On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:36:19PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > This series pulls together several related patches for bugs and > performance that I found last week. Only the 2nd patch is actually > modified from inital posting, adding the comments suggested by > Markus. The 1st two patches fix pretty serious brokeness in the > CPUPhysMemoryClient interface. Of the two current users, kvm and > vhost, only vhost is actually affected by these bugs. Please > apply. Thanks, > > Alex Applied first two, thanks! > --- > > Alex Williamson (3): > CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup > CPUPhysMemoryClient: Pass guest physical address not region offset > CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fix typo in phys memory client registration > > > exec.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-25 6:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-05-03 18:36 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fixes and batching Alex Williamson 2011-05-03 18:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fix typo in phys memory client registration Alex Williamson 2011-05-03 18:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Pass guest physical address not region offset Alex Williamson 2011-05-03 18:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Batch contiguous addresses when playing catchup Alex Williamson 2011-05-05 13:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-05 14:21 ` Alex Williamson 2011-05-05 14:30 ` Jes Sorensen 2011-05-05 15:18 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-05 15:36 ` Jes Sorensen 2011-05-05 15:38 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-05 15:40 ` Jes Sorensen 2011-05-05 15:41 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-05 15:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-25 3:47 ` Alex Williamson 2011-05-25 6:08 ` Michael S. Tsirkin 2011-05-05 13:21 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] CPUPhysMemoryClient: Fixes and batching Michael S. Tsirkin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).