At 16:48 +0100 on 27 Jun (1309193311), Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 14:15 +0100 on 27 Jun (1309184128), Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 14:23 +0200 on 27 Jun (1309184586), Christoph Egger wrote:
> > > > - Why is there a 10x increase in IPIs after this series? I don't see
> > > > what sequence of events sets the relevant cpumask bits to make this
> > > > happen.
> > >
> > > In patch 1 the code that sends the IPIs was outside of the loop and
> > > moved into the loop.
> >
> > Well, yes, but I don't see what that causes 10x IPIs, unless the vcpus
> > are burning through np2m tables very quickly indeed. Maybe removing the
> > extra flushes for TLB control will do the trick. I'll make a patch...
>
> I think I get it - it's a race between p2m_flush_nestedp2m() on one CPU
> flushing all the nested P2M tables and a VCPU on another CPU repeatedly
> getting fresh ones. Try the attached patch, which should cut back the
> major source of p2m_flush_nestedp2m() calls.
>
> Writing it, I realised that after my locking fix, p2m_flush_nestedp2m()
> isn't safe because it can run in parallel with p2m_get_nestedp2m, which
> reorders the array it walks. I'll have to make the LRU-fu independent
> of the array order; should be easy enough but I'll hold off committing
> the current series until I've done it.
I've just pushed 23633 - 26369, which is this series plus the change to
the LRU code (and a fix to the NULL deref you reported is folded in).
Hopefully that puts nested SVM back in at least as good a state as it
was before my locking-order patch broke it! :)
Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Xen Platform Team
Citrix Systems UK Ltd. (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG)
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home