Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754190Ab3FJRDs (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:03:48 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10383 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752095Ab3FJRDq (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:03:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:03:41 +0300 From: Gleb Natapov To: Takuya Yoshikawa Cc: Xiao Guangrong , Xiao Guangrong , avi.kivity@gmail.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] KVM: MMU: fast invalidate all mmio sptes Message-ID: <20130610170341.GJ29022@redhat.com> References: <1370595088-3315-1-git-send-email-xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130610075656.GY4725@redhat.com> <51B590C9.9080009@gmail.com> <20130610224352.0a769838745b294fc43f7823@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130610224352.0a769838745b294fc43f7823@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1795 Lines: 42 On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:43:52PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:39:37 +0800 > Xiao Guangrong wrote: > > > On 06/10/2013 03:56 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 04:51:22PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > > > > Looks good to me, but doesn't tis obsolete kvm_mmu_zap_mmio_sptes() and > > > sp->mmio_cached, so they should be removed as part of the patch series? > > > > Yes, i agree, they should be removed. :) > > I'm fine with removing it but please make it clear that you all agree > on the same basis. > > Last time, Paolo mentioned the possibility to use some bits of spte for > other things. The suggestion there was to keep sp->mmio_cached code > for the time we would need to reduce the bits for generation numbers. > > Do you think that zap_all() is now preemptible and can treat the > situation reasonably well as the current kvm_mmu_zap_mmio_sptes()? > > One downside is the need to zap unrelated shadow pages, but if this case > is really very rare, yes I agree, it should not be a problem: it depends > on how many bits we can use. > > Just please reconfirm. > That was me who mention the possibility to use some bits of spte for other things. But for now I have a use for one bit only. Now that you have reminded me about that discussion I am not so sure we want to remove kvm_mmu_zap_mmio_sptes(), but on the other hand it is non preemptable, so large number of mmio sptes can cause soft lockups. zap_all() is better in this regards now. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/