[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3 of 4] Nested p2m: clarify logic in p2m_get_nestedp2m()


At 15:53 +0100 on 24 Jun (1308930816), Christoph Egger wrote:
> > More generally, I think that you need to figure out exactly what
> > behaviour you want from this function.  For example in the current code
> > there's no way that two vcpus with the same ncr3 value can share a
> > nested-p2m.  Is that deliberate?
> By 'current code' do you mean with or w/o this patch ?

Both, and all versions of the code from before my current series to the
full series applied. 

> It is deliberate that two vcpus with the same ncr3 share a nested-p2m.

But they don't.  The code in current unstable tip does this:

    for (i = 0; i < MAX_NESTEDP2M; i++) {
        p2m = d->arch.nested_p2m[i];
        if ((p2m->cr3 != cr3 && p2m->cr3 != CR3_EADDR) || (p2m != nv->nv_p2m))

        // ... return this p2m

    /* All p2m's are or were in use. Take the least recent used one,
     * flush it and reuse.
    for (i = 0; i < MAX_NESTEDP2M; i++) {
        p2m = p2m_getlru_nestedp2m(d, NULL);
        rv = p2m_flush_locked(p2m);
        if (rv == 0)

    // ... return this p2m

The first loop never returns a p2m that's != nv->nv_p2m.  The second
loop always returns a fresh, flushed p2m.  So there's no way that two
different vcpus, starting with nv->nv_p2m == NULL, can ever get the same
p2m as each other. 

The pseudocode is basically: 
 - If I have an existing nv_p2m and it hasn't been flushed, reuse it. 
 - Else flush all np2ms in LRU order and return the last one flushed.

My patch 3/4 doesn't change the logic at all (I think); your latest fix
just avoids the over-aggressive flushing of all np2ms. 

> But fixing the p2m locking problem in upstream tree has a higher
> priority right now and we can work on that after the p2m locking
> issue is fixed upstream.

AFAICS the locking is fixed by the current set of patches (though I'm
still not able to run Xen-in-Xen well enough to test them).  I can send
the full series again for clarity if you like.  The outstanding bug is
that there are many more IPIs than previously; I suspect that your
latest fix will reduce them quite a lot by avoiding a storm of
mutually-destructive flush operations.  If the performance is still too
bad we can add more IPI-avoidance strategies.



Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Xen Platform Team
Citrix Systems UK Ltd.  (Company #02937203, SL9 0BG)

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.