Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:29:45 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        avi.kivity@gmail.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] KVM: MMU: allow locklessly access shadow page
 table out of vcpu thread
Message-ID: <20131014192945.GA22655@amt.cnet>
References: <20131009015627.GA4816@amt.cnet>
 <525533DB.1060104@gmail.com>
 <20131010014710.GA2198@amt.cnet>
 <20131010120845.GT3574@redhat.com>
 <20131010164222.GB3211@amt.cnet>
 <20131010191646.GE15954@redhat.com>
 <20131010210301.GA7275@amt.cnet>
 <20131011053831.GG15954@redhat.com>
 <20131011203017.GA29576@amt.cnet>
 <20131012055356.GC14789@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131012055356.GC14789@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2705
Lines: 58

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 08:53:56AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 05:30:17PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 08:38:31AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > n_max_mmu_pages is not a suitable limit to throttle freeing of pages via
> > > > RCU (its too large). If the free memory watermarks are smaller than 
> > > > n_max_mmu_pages for all guests, OOM is possible.
> > > > 
> > > Ah, yes. I am not saying n_max_mmu_pages will throttle RCU, just saying
> > > that slab size will be bound, so hopefully shrinker will touch it
> > > rarely.
> > > 
> > > > > > > and, in addition, page released to slab is immediately
> > > > > > > available for allocation, no need to wait for grace period. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > See SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU comment at include/linux/slab.h.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > This comment is exactly what I was referring to in the code you quoted. Do
> > > > > you see anything problematic in what comment describes?
> > > > 
> > > > "This delays freeing the SLAB page by a grace period, it does _NOT_
> > > > delay object freeing." The page is not available for allocation.
> > > By "page" I mean "spt page" which is a slab object. So "spt page"
> > > AKA slab object will be available fo allocation immediately.
> > 
> > The object is reusable within that SLAB cache only, not the 
> > entire system (therefore it does not prevent OOM condition).
> > 
> Since object is allocatable immediately by shadow paging code the number
> of SLAB objects is bound by n_max_mmu_pages. If there is no enough
> memory for n_max_mmu_pages OOM condition can happen anyway since shadow
> paging code will usually have exactly n_max_mmu_pages allocated.
> 
> > OK, perhaps it is useful to use SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, but throttling 
> > is still necessary, as described in the RCU documentation.
> > 
> I do not see what should be throttled if we use SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. RCU
> comes into play only when SLAB cache is shrunk and it happens far from
> kvm code.

You are right.

Why is it safe to allow access, by the lockless page write protect
side, to spt pointer for shadow page A that can change to a shadow page 
pointer of shadow page B?

Write protect spte of any page at will? Or verify that in fact thats the
shadow you want to write protect?

Note that spte value might be the same for different shadow pages, 
so cmpxchg succeeding does not guarantees its the same shadow page that
has been protected.


--
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/