At 13:59 -0400 on 13 Oct (1318514390), Andres Lagar Cavilla wrote:
> Good stuff Tim, let me summarize:
>
>
> - The key is to obtain exclusive access to a p2m entry, or range [gfn,
> gfn + 1<<order). This exclusive access lasts beyond the actual lookup,
> until the caller is finished with modifications, to prevent the p2m
> mapping changing underfoot.
Yes. It only excludes concurrent updates, not concurrent lookups, so in
that way it's effectively a per-range MRSW lock, implemented with
refcounts. (I feel like I'm working around in a circle to your first
suggestion!)
> - bits for either fine-grain locks or refcounts need to be set aside.
> Stuffing those bits in actual p2m entries will be very error prone/not
> possible, given all existing implementations (NPT+IOMMU, 32bit, etc).
> So, we're stuck with extra space overhead for a fine-grained p2m
> concurrency control structure.
Yes.
> - Unless the recount collapses into the page_info struct. Even then
> there is a critical section "get p2m_entry then get_page" that needs
> to execute atomically.
True, and since you only get the page struct after the p2m lookup that's
tricky.
> - foreign mappings can block p2m actions for arbitrarily long. This
> doesn't usually happen, but the risk is latent. This is "hard to
> solve", for now.
Yes.
> question 1: I still don't see the need for refcounts. If you want to
> prevent changes underfoot, you need to lock the entry, and that's it.
> In all the cases you explained, somebody would have to wait until the
> refcount on the entry drops to reflect they are the only holder. This
> is akin to being locked out.
It should be possible for multiple clients to look up and use the same
p2m entry (e.g. Qemu having a mapping of a guest frame shouldn't stop
x86_emulate from reading or writing that memory, though both of those
should stop any concurrent p2m update to the gfn).
> question 2: although internal hypervisor code paths do not seem to act
> on unaligned p2m ranges, external calls (e.g. MEMF_populate_on_demand)
> could possibly pass unaligned ranges. These complicate fine-grain
> concurrency. Should we fail those? With so many toolstacks out there,
> I feel very hesitant.
Hmm. Most operations that touch large numbers of frames already have a
partial-success return path (or at least stop-and-retry) to avoid
long-running operations starving timers, softirqs etc. If there are
paths that don't do this, maybe they should. :)
> question 3: is there any way to know a priori the max gfn a domain
> will have? Can we pre-allocate the concurrency control structure as
> opposed to demand allocating it?
Not any sensible maximum, no, and gfn sapace can be sparse so it might
not make sense to allocate it all up front anyway. But the p2m
structures themselves are allocated on demand so the extra bookkeeping
space can run alongside them.
> suggestion 1: bake exclusive access in the current calls. A p2m
> lookup, followed by a p2m set_entry, delimit a critical section for
> that range of p2m mappings. p2m lookups without closing set_entry will
> have to issue a call to drop exclusive access on the range of
> mappings.
As I said above, it shouldn't be exclusive with other _lookups_, only
with updates. But I have no objection to adding a flag to the lookup
function that lets the caller choose "lock for update" vs "lock for
lookup".
> suggestion 2: limit fine granularity (if locking, not refcounting), to
> 2MB superpages. Saves space. 512 neighbours can surely coexist without
> locking each other out :)
Sure; if that turns out to cause a lot of contention it can be changed
later.
Cheers,
Tim.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home