Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755490Ab3G3NHv (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:07:51 -0400 Received: from e23smtp04.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.146]:39090 "EHLO e23smtp04.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755159Ab3G3NHr (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:07:47 -0400 From: Xiao Guangrong To: gleb@redhat.com Cc: avi.kivity@gmail.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Xiao Guangrong Subject: [PATCH 07/12] KVM: MMU: redesign the algorithm of pte_list Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:02:05 +0800 Message-Id: <1375189330-24066-8-git-send-email-xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.1.4 In-Reply-To: <1375189330-24066-1-git-send-email-xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1375189330-24066-1-git-send-email-xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13073012-9264-0000-0000-0000043AF7C9 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 7306 Lines: 260 Change the algorithm to: 1) always add new desc to the first desc (pointed by parent_ptes/rmap) that is good to implement rcu-nulls-list-like lockless rmap walking 2) always move the entry in first desc to the the position we want to remove when remove a spte in the parent_ptes/rmap （backward-move). It is good for us to implement lockless rmap walk since in the current code, when a spte is deleted from the "desc", another spte in the last "desc" will be moved to this position to replace the deleted one. If the deleted one has been accessed and we do not access the replaced one, the replaced one is missed when we do lockless walk. To fix this case, we do not backward move the spte, instead, we forward move the entry: when a spte is deleted, we move the entry in the first desc to that position Both of these also can reduce cache miss Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong --- arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 182 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 125 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c index 5a40564..3013bb1 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c @@ -918,6 +918,50 @@ static int mapping_level(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t large_gfn) return level - 1; } +static int __find_first_free(struct pte_list_desc *desc) +{ + int i; + + for (i = 0; i < PTE_LIST_EXT; i++) + if (!desc->sptes[i]) + break; + return i; +} + +static int find_first_free(struct pte_list_desc *desc) +{ + int free = __find_first_free(desc); + + WARN_ON(free >= PTE_LIST_EXT); + return free; +} + +static int find_last_used(struct pte_list_desc *desc) +{ + int used = __find_first_free(desc) - 1; + + WARN_ON(used < 0 || used >= PTE_LIST_EXT); + return used; +} + +/* + * TODO: we can encode the desc number into the rmap/parent_ptes + * since at least 10 physical/virtual address bits are reserved + * on x86. It is worthwhile if it shows that the desc walking is + * a performance issue. + */ +static int count_spte_number(struct pte_list_desc *desc) +{ + int first_free, desc_num; + + first_free = __find_first_free(desc); + + for (desc_num = 0; desc->more; desc = desc->more) + desc_num++; + + return first_free + desc_num * PTE_LIST_EXT; +} + /* * Pte mapping structures: * @@ -934,92 +978,116 @@ static int pte_list_add(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *spte, unsigned long *pte_list) { struct pte_list_desc *desc; - int i, count = 0; + int free_pos; if (!*pte_list) { rmap_printk("pte_list_add: %p %llx 0->1\n", spte, *spte); *pte_list = (unsigned long)spte; - } else if (!(*pte_list & 1)) { + return 0; + } + + if (!(*pte_list & 1)) { rmap_printk("pte_list_add: %p %llx 1->many\n", spte, *spte); desc = mmu_alloc_pte_list_desc(vcpu); desc->sptes[0] = (u64 *)*pte_list; desc->sptes[1] = spte; *pte_list = (unsigned long)desc | 1; - ++count; - } else { - rmap_printk("pte_list_add: %p %llx many->many\n", spte, *spte); - desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul); - while (desc->sptes[PTE_LIST_EXT-1] && desc->more) { - desc = desc->more; - count += PTE_LIST_EXT; - } - if (desc->sptes[PTE_LIST_EXT-1]) { - desc->more = mmu_alloc_pte_list_desc(vcpu); - desc = desc->more; - } - for (i = 0; desc->sptes[i]; ++i) - ++count; - desc->sptes[i] = spte; + return 1; + } + + rmap_printk("pte_list_add: %p %llx many->many\n", spte, *spte); + desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul); + + /* No empty position in the desc. */ + if (desc->sptes[PTE_LIST_EXT - 1]) { + struct pte_list_desc *new_desc; + new_desc = mmu_alloc_pte_list_desc(vcpu); + new_desc->more = desc; + desc = new_desc; + *pte_list = (unsigned long)desc | 1; } - return count; + + free_pos = find_first_free(desc); + desc->sptes[free_pos] = spte; + return count_spte_number(desc); } static void -pte_list_desc_remove_entry(unsigned long *pte_list, struct pte_list_desc *desc, - int i, struct pte_list_desc *prev_desc) +pte_list_desc_remove_entry(unsigned long *pte_list, + struct pte_list_desc *desc, int i) { - int j; + struct pte_list_desc *first_desc; + int last_used; + + first_desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul); + last_used = find_last_used(first_desc); - for (j = PTE_LIST_EXT - 1; !desc->sptes[j] && j > i; --j) - ; - desc->sptes[i] = desc->sptes[j]; - desc->sptes[j] = NULL; - if (j != 0) + /* + * Move the entry from the first desc to this position we want + * to remove. + */ + desc->sptes[i] = first_desc->sptes[last_used]; + first_desc->sptes[last_used] = NULL; + + /* No valid entry in this desc, we can free this desc now. */ + if (!first_desc->sptes[0]) { + struct pte_list_desc *next_desc = first_desc->more; + + /* + * Only one entry existing but still use a desc to store it? + */ + WARN_ON(!next_desc); + + mmu_free_pte_list_desc(first_desc); + first_desc = next_desc; + *pte_list = (unsigned long)first_desc | 1ul; return; - if (!prev_desc && !desc->more) - *pte_list = (unsigned long)desc->sptes[0]; - else - if (prev_desc) - prev_desc->more = desc->more; - else - *pte_list = (unsigned long)desc->more | 1; - mmu_free_pte_list_desc(desc); + } + + WARN_ON(!first_desc->sptes[0]); + + /* + * Only one entry in this desc, move the entry to the head + * then the desc can be freed. + */ + if (!first_desc->sptes[1] && !first_desc->more) { + *pte_list = (unsigned long)first_desc->sptes[0]; + mmu_free_pte_list_desc(first_desc); + } } static void pte_list_remove(u64 *spte, unsigned long *pte_list) { struct pte_list_desc *desc; - struct pte_list_desc *prev_desc; int i; if (!*pte_list) { - printk(KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 0->BUG\n", spte); - BUG(); - } else if (!(*pte_list & 1)) { + WARN(1, KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 0->BUG\n", spte); + return; + } + + if (!(*pte_list & 1)) { rmap_printk("pte_list_remove: %p 1->0\n", spte); if ((u64 *)*pte_list != spte) { - printk(KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 1->BUG\n", spte); - BUG(); + WARN(1, KERN_ERR "pte_list_remove: %p 1->BUG\n", spte); } *pte_list = 0; - } else { - rmap_printk("pte_list_remove: %p many->many\n", spte); - desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul); - prev_desc = NULL; - while (desc) { - for (i = 0; i < PTE_LIST_EXT && desc->sptes[i]; ++i) - if (desc->sptes[i] == spte) { - pte_list_desc_remove_entry(pte_list, - desc, i, - prev_desc); - return; - } - prev_desc = desc; - desc = desc->more; - } - pr_err("pte_list_remove: %p many->many\n", spte); - BUG(); + return; } + + rmap_printk("pte_list_remove: %p many->many\n", spte); + desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul); + while (desc) { + for (i = 0; i < PTE_LIST_EXT && desc->sptes[i]; ++i) + if (desc->sptes[i] == spte) { + pte_list_desc_remove_entry(pte_list, + desc, i); + return; + } + desc = desc->more; + } + + WARN(1, "pte_list_remove: %p many->many\n", spte); } typedef void (*pte_list_walk_fn) (u64 *spte); -- 1.8.1.4 -- 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/