Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754312AbbLERDM (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Dec 2015 12:03:12 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:15586 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753912AbbLERDK (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Dec 2015 12:03:10 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,385,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="854636481" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] KVM: x86: track guest page access To: Paolo Bonzini References: <1448907973-36066-1-git-send-email-guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com> <565D73BA.8020002@redhat.com> <565DD218.4080902@linux.intel.com> Cc: gleb@kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli From: Xiao Guangrong Message-ID: <5663174E.7080709@linux.intel.com> Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 00:56:46 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <565DD218.4080902@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3655 Lines: 86 Ping... Paolo, any comment? On 12/02/2015 01:00 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > > > On 12/01/2015 06:17 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 30/11/2015 19:26, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >>> This patchset introduces the feature which allows us to track page >>> access in guest. Currently, only write access tracking is implemented >>> in this version. >>> >>> Four APIs are introduces: >>> - kvm_page_track_add_page(kvm, gfn, mode), single guest page @gfn is >>> added into the track pool of the guest instance represented by @kvm, >>> @mode specifies which kind of access on the @gfn is tracked >>> >>> - kvm_page_track_remove_page(kvm, gfn, mode), is the opposed operation >>> of kvm_page_track_add_page() which removes @gfn from the tracking pool. >>> gfn is no tracked after its last user is gone >>> >>> - kvm_page_track_register_notifier(kvm, n), register a notifier so that >>> the event triggered by page tracking will be received, at that time, >>> the callback of n->track_write() will be called >>> >>> - kvm_page_track_unregister_notifier(kvm, n), does the opposed operation >>> of kvm_page_track_register_notifier(), which unlinks the notifier and >>> stops receiving the tracked event >>> >>> The first user of page track is non-leaf shadow page tables as they are >>> always write protected. It also gains performance improvement because >>> page track speeds up page fault handler for the tracked pages. The >>> performance result of kernel building is as followings: >>> >>> before after >>> real 461.63 real 455.48 >>> user 4529.55 user 4557.88 >>> sys 1995.39 sys 1922.57 >> >> For KVM-GT, as far as I know Andrea Arcangeli is working on extending >> userfaultfd to tracking write faults only. Perhaps KVM-GT can do >> something similar, where KVM gets the write tracking functionality for >> free through the MMU notifiers. Any thoughts on this? > > Userfaultfd is excellent and has the ability to notify write event indeed, > however, it is not suitable for the use case of shadow page. > > For the performance, shadow GPU is performance critical and requires > frequently being switched, it is not good to handle it in userspace. And > windows guest has many GPU tables and updates it frequently, that means, > we need to write protect huge number of pages which are single page based, > I am afraid userfaultfd can not handle this case efficiently. > > For the functionality, userfaultfd can not fill the need of shadow page > because: > - the page is keeping readonly, userfaultfd can not fix the fault and let > the vcpu progress (write access causes writeable gup). > > - the access need to be emulated, however, userfaultfd/kernel does not have > the ability to emulate the access as the access is trigged by guest, the > instruction info is stored in VMCS so that only KVM can emulate it. > > - shadow page needs to be notified after the emulation is finished as it > should know the new data written to the page to update its page hierarchy. > (some hardwares lack the 'retry' ability so the shadow page table need to > reflect the table in guest at any time). > >> >> Applying your technique to non-leaf shadow pages actually makes this >> series quite interesting. :) Shadow paging is still in use for nested >> EPT, so it's always a good idea to speed it up. > > Yes. Very glad to see you like it. :) > > -- 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/