[From Patrick]
Ah. Well, as long as it's in it's own library or API or whatever so
other applications can take advantage of it, then it's fine by me :)
libintrospec or something like that.
Patrick
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Grzegorz Milos
<grzegorz.milos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [From Bryan]
>
>> I guess I'm more envisioning integrating all this with libxc and
>> having XenAccess et al. use that. Keeping it as a separate, VM
>> introspection library makes sense too. In any case, I think having
>> XenAccess as part of Xen is a good move. VM introspection is a useful
>> thing to have and I think a lot of projects could benefit from it.
>
> From my experience, the address translations can actually be pretty
> tricky. This is a big chunk of what XenAccess does, and it requires
> some memory analysis in the domU to find necessary page tables and
> such. So it may be more than you really want to add to libxc. But if
> you go down this route, then I could certainly simplify the XenAccess
> code, so I wouldn't complain about that :-)
>
> -bryan
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Grzegorz Milos
> <grzegorz.milos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> [From Patrick]
>>
>> I guess I'm more envisioning integrating all this with libxc and
>> having XenAccess et al. use that. Keeping it as a separate, VM
>> introspection library makes sense too. In any case, I think having
>> XenAccess as part of Xen is a good move. VM introspection is a useful
>> thing to have and I think a lot of projects could benefit from it.
>>
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Grzegorz Milos
>> <grzegorz.milos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> [From Bryan]
>>>
>>>> XenAccess, but how feasible is it to even move some of the gva/pfn/mfn
>>>> translation code out into the library and have the mem_event daemon
>>>> use that? I do remember reading through and borrowing XenAccess code
>>>
>>> This is certainly doable. But if we decide to make a Xen library
>>> depend on XenAccess, then it would make sense to include XenAccess as
>>> part of the Xen distribution, IMHO. This probably isn't too
>>> unreasonable to consider, but we'd want to make sure that the
>>> XenAccess configuration is either simplified or eliminated to avoid
>>> causing headaches for the average person using this stuff. Something
>>> to think about...
>>>
>>> -bryan
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Grzegorz Milos
>>> <grzegorz.milos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> [From Patrick]
>>>>
>>>>> I like this idea as it keeps Xen as simple as possible and should also
>>>>> help to reduce the number of notifications sent from Xen up to user
>>>>> space (e.g., one notification to the daemon could then be pushed out
>>>>> to multiple clients that care about it).
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that was my general thinking as well. So the immediate change to
>>>> the mem_event interface for this would be a way to specify sub-page
>>>> level stuff. The best way to approach this is probably by specifying a
>>>> start and end range (or more likely start address and size). This way
>>>> things like swapping and sharing would specify the start address of
>>>> the page they're interested in and PAGE_SIZE (or, more realistically
>>>> there would be an additional lib call to do page-level stuff, which
>>>> would just take the pfn and do this translation under the hood).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For what it's worth, I'd be happy to build such a daemon into
>>>>> XenAccess. This may be a logical place for it since XenAccess is
>>>>> already doing address translations and such, so it would be easier for
>>>>> a client app to specify an address range of interest as a virtual
>>>>> address or physical address. This would prevent the need to repeat
>>>>> some of that address translation functionality in yet another library.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively, we could provide the daemon functionality in libxc or
>>>>> some other Xen library and only provide support for low level
>>>>> addresses (e.g., pfn + offset). Then XenAccess could build on top of
>>>>> that to offer higher level addresses (e.g., pa or va) using its
>>>>> existing translation mechanisms. This approach would more closely
>>>>> mirror the current division of labor between XenAccess and libxc.
>>>>
>>>> This sounds good to me. I'd lean towards the second approach as I
>>>> think it's the better long-term solution. I'm a bit rusty on my
>>>> XenAccess, but how feasible is it to even move some of the gva/pfn/mfn
>>>> translation code out into the library and have the mem_event daemon
>>>> use that? I do remember reading through and borrowing XenAccess code
>>>> (or at least the general mechanism) to do address translation stuff
>>>> for other projects, so it seems like having a general way to do that
>>>> would be a win. I think I did it with the CoW stuff, which I actually
>>>> want to port to the mem_event interface as well, both to have it
>>>> available and as another example of neat things we can do with the
>>>> interface.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Grzegorz Milos
>>>> <grzegorz.milos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> [From Bryan]
>>>>>
>>>>>> needs to know to do sync notification). What's everybody thoughts on
>>>>>> this? Does it seem reasonable or have I gone completely mad?
>>>>>
>>>>> I like this idea as it keeps Xen as simple as possible and should also
>>>>> help to reduce the number of notifications sent from Xen up to user
>>>>> space (e.g., one notification to the daemon could then be pushed out
>>>>> to multiple clients that care about it).
>>>>>
>>>>> For what it's worth, I'd be happy to build such a daemon into
>>>>> XenAccess. This may be a logical place for it since XenAccess is
>>>>> already doing address translations and such, so it would be easier for
>>>>> a client app to specify an address range of interest as a virtual
>>>>> address or physical address. This would prevent the need to repeat
>>>>> some of that address translation functionality in yet another library.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively, we could provide the daemon functionality in libxc or
>>>>> some other Xen library and only provide support for low level
>>>>> addresses (e.g., pfn + offset). Then XenAccess could build on top of
>>>>> that to offer higher level addresses (e.g., pa or va) using its
>>>>> existing translation mechanisms. This approach would more closely
>>>>> mirror the current division of labor between XenAccess and libxc.
>>>>>
>>>>> -bryan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Grzegorz Milos
>>>>> <grzegorz.milos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> [From Patrick]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I'm coming in the middle of this discussion, forgive me if I've
>>>>>>> missed something. But is the idea here to create a more general
>>>>>>> interface that could support various different types of memory events
>>>>>>> + notification? And the two events listed below are just a subset of
>>>>>>> the events that could / would be supported?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In general, I like the sound of where this is going but I would like
>>>>>>> to see support for notification of events such as when a domU reads /
>>>>>>> writes / execs a pre-specified byte(s) of memory. As such, there
>>>>>>> would need to be a notification path (as discussed below) and also a
>>>>>>> control path to setup the memory regions that the user app cares
>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sub-page events is something I would like to have included as well.
>>>>>> Currently the control path is basically just "nominating" a page (for
>>>>>> either swapping or sharing). It's not entirely clear to me the best
>>>>>> way to go about this. With swapping and sharing we have code in Xen to
>>>>>> handle both cases. However, to just receive notifications (like
>>>>>> "read", "write", "execute") I don't think we need specialised support
>>>>>> (or at least just once to handle the notifications). I'm thinking it
>>>>>> might be good to have a daemon to handle these events in user-space
>>>>>> and register clients with the user-space daemon. Each client would get
>>>>>> a unique client ID which could be used to identify who should get the
>>>>>> response. This way, we could just register that somebody is interested
>>>>>> in that page (or byte, etc) and let the user-space tool handle most of
>>>>>> the complex logic (i.e. which of the clients should that particular
>>>>>> notification go to). This requires some notion of priority for memory
>>>>>> areas (e.g. if one client requests notification for access to a byte
>>>>>> of page foo and another requests notification for access to any of
>>>>>> page foo, then we only need Xen to store that it should notify for
>>>>>> page foo and just send along which byte(s) of the page were accessed
>>>>>> as well, then the user-space daemon can determine if both clients
>>>>>> should be notified or just the one) (e.g. if one client requests async
>>>>>> notification and another requests sync notification, then Xen only
>>>>>> needs to know to do sync notification). What's everybody thoughts on
>>>>>> this? Does it seem reasonable or have I gone completely mad?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Grzegorz Milos
>>>>>> <grzegorz.milos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> [From Bryan]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bryan D. Payne
>>>>>>> to Patrick, me, george.dunlap, Andrew, Steven
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> show details Jun 16 (7 days ago)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patrick, thanks for the inclusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I'm coming in the middle of this discussion, forgive me if I've
>>>>>>> missed something. But is the idea here to create a more general
>>>>>>> interface that could support various different types of memory events
>>>>>>> + notification? And the two events listed below are just a subset of
>>>>>>> the events that could / would be supported?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In general, I like the sound of where this is going but I would like
>>>>>>> to see support for notification of events such as when a domU reads /
>>>>>>> writes / execs a pre-specified byte(s) of memory. As such, there
>>>>>>> would need to be a notification path (as discussed below) and also a
>>>>>>> control path to setup the memory regions that the user app cares
>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -bryan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Grzegorz Milos
>>>>>>> <grzegorz.milos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> [From Patrick]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the idea of multiple rings is a good one. We'll register the
>>>>>>>> clients in Xen and when an mem_event is reached, we can just iterate
>>>>>>>> through the list of listeners to see who needs a notification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The person working on the anti-virus stuff is Bryan Payne from Georgia
>>>>>>>> Tech. I've CCed him as well so we can get his input on this stuff as
>>>>>>>> well. It's better to hash out a proper interface now rather than
>>>>>>>> continually changing it around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Grzegorz Milos
>>>>>>>> <grzegorz.milos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [From Gregor]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are two major events that the memory sharing code needs to
>>>>>>>>> communicate over the hypervisor/userspace boundary:
>>>>>>>>> 1. GFN unsharing failed due to lack of memory. This will be called the
>>>>>>>>> 'OOM event' from now on.
>>>>>>>>> 2. MFN is no longer sharable (actually an opaque sharing handle would
>>>>>>>>> be communicated instead of the MFN). 'Handle invalidate event' from
>>>>>>>>> now on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The requirements on the OOM event are relatively similar to the
>>>>>>>>> page-in event. The way this should operate is that the faulting VCPU
>>>>>>>>> is paused, and the pager is requested to free up some memory. When it
>>>>>>>>> does so, it should generate an appropriate response, and wake up the
>>>>>>>>> VCPU back again using a domctl. The event is going to be low volume,
>>>>>>>>> and since it is going to be handled synchronously, likely in tens of
>>>>>>>>> ms, there are no particular requirements on the efficiency.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Handle invalidate event type is less important in the short term
>>>>>>>>> because the userspace sharing daemon is designed to be resilient to
>>>>>>>>> unfresh sharing state. However, if it is missing it will make the
>>>>>>>>> sharing progressively less effective as time goes on. The idea is that
>>>>>>>>> the hypervisor communicates which sharing handles are no longer valid,
>>>>>>>>> such that the sharing daemon only attempts to share pages in the
>>>>>>>>> correct state. This would be relatively high volume event, but it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to be accurate (i.e. events can be dropped if they are
>>>>>>>>> not consumed quickly enough). As such this event should be batch
>>>>>>>>> delivered, in an asynchronous fashion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The OOM event is coded up in Xen, but it will not be consumed properly
>>>>>>>>> in the pager. If I remember correctly, I didn't want to interfere with
>>>>>>>>> the page-in events because the event interface assumed that mem-event
>>>>>>>>> responses are inserted onto the ring in precisely the same order as
>>>>>>>>> the requests. This may not be the case when we start mixing different
>>>>>>>>> event types. WRT to the handle invalidation, the relevant hooks exist
>>>>>>>>> in Xen, and in the mem sharing daemon, but there is no way to
>>>>>>>>> communicate events to two different consumers atm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since the requirements on the two different sharing event types are
>>>>>>>>> substantially different, I think it may be easier if separate channels
>>>>>>>>> (i.e. separate rings) were used to transfer them. This would also fix
>>>>>>>>> the multiple consumers issue relatively easily. Of course you may know
>>>>>>>>> of some other mem events that wouldn't fit in that scheme.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I remember that there was someone working on an external anti-virus
>>>>>>>>> software, which prompted the whole mem-event work. I don't remember
>>>>>>>>> his/hers name or affiliation (could you remind me?), but maybe he/she
>>>>>>>>> would be interested in working on some of this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>> Gregor
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home