On 07/19/2010 06:30 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
quoted text > When async PF capability is detected hook up special page fault handler
> that will handle async page fault events and bypass other page faults to
> regular page fault handler.
>
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel<riel@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov<gleb@redhat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h | 3 +
> arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h | 1 +
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S | 10 +++
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 3 +
> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 170 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h
> index f1662d7..edf07cf 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h
> @@ -65,6 +65,9 @@ struct kvm_mmu_op_release_pt {
> __u64 pt_phys;
> };
>
> +#define KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_NOT_PRESENT 1
> +#define KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_READY 2
> +
> struct kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data {
> __u32 reason;
> __u32 enabled;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h
> index f66cda5..0310da6 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ asmlinkage void segment_not_present(void);
> asmlinkage void stack_segment(void);
> asmlinkage void general_protection(void);
> asmlinkage void page_fault(void);
> +asmlinkage void async_page_fault(void);
> asmlinkage void spurious_interrupt_bug(void);
> asmlinkage void coprocessor_error(void);
> asmlinkage void alignment_check(void);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S
> index cd49141..95e13da 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S
> @@ -1494,6 +1494,16 @@ ENTRY(general_protection)
> CFI_ENDPROC
> END(general_protection)
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_GUEST
> +ENTRY(async_page_fault)
> + RING0_EC_FRAME
> + pushl $do_async_page_fault
> + CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 4
> + jmp error_code
> + CFI_ENDPROC
> +END(apf_page_fault)
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * End of kprobes section
> */
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> index 0697ff1..65c3eb6 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
> @@ -1346,6 +1346,9 @@ errorentry xen_stack_segment do_stack_segment
> #endif
> errorentry general_protection do_general_protection
> errorentry page_fault do_page_fault
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_GUEST
> +errorentry async_page_fault do_async_page_fault
> +#endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE
> paranoidzeroentry machine_check *machine_check_vector(%rip)
> #endif
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> index 5177dd1..a6db92e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> @@ -29,8 +29,14 @@
> #include<linux/hardirq.h>
> #include<linux/notifier.h>
> #include<linux/reboot.h>
> +#include<linux/hash.h>
> +#include<linux/sched.h>
> +#include<linux/slab.h>
> +#include<linux/kprobes.h>
> #include<asm/timer.h>
> #include<asm/cpu.h>
> +#include<asm/traps.h>
> +#include<asm/desc.h>
>
> #define MMU_QUEUE_SIZE 1024
>
> @@ -54,6 +60,158 @@ static void kvm_io_delay(void)
> {
> }
>
> +#define KVM_TASK_SLEEP_HASHBITS 8
> +#define KVM_TASK_SLEEP_HASHSIZE (1<<KVM_TASK_SLEEP_HASHBITS)
> +
> +struct kvm_task_sleep_node {
> + struct hlist_node link;
> + wait_queue_head_t wq;
> + u32 token;
> + int cpu;
> +};
> +
> +static struct kvm_task_sleep_head {
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + struct hlist_head list;
> +} async_pf_sleepers[KVM_TASK_SLEEP_HASHSIZE];
> +
> +static struct kvm_task_sleep_node *_find_apf_task(struct kvm_task_sleep_head *b,
> + u64 token)
u64 token?
quoted text > +{
> + struct hlist_node *p;
> +
> + hlist_for_each(p,&b->list) {
> + struct kvm_task_sleep_node *n =
> + hlist_entry(p, typeof(*n), link);
> + if (n->token == token)
> + return n;
Do you need to match cpu here as well? Or is token globally unique?
Perhaps we should make it locally unique to remove a requirement from
the host to synchronize? I haven't seen how you generate it yet.
quoted text > + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static void apf_task_wait(struct task_struct *tsk, u32 token)
> +{
> + u32 key = hash_32(token, KVM_TASK_SLEEP_HASHBITS);
> + struct kvm_task_sleep_head *b =&async_pf_sleepers[key];
> + struct kvm_task_sleep_node n, *e;
> + DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> +
> + spin_lock(&b->lock);
> + e = _find_apf_task(b, token);
> + if (e) {
> + /* dummy entry exist -> wake up was delivered ahead of PF */
> + hlist_del(&e->link);
> + kfree(e);
> + spin_unlock(&b->lock);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + n.token = token;
> + n.cpu = smp_processor_id();
What's the meaning of cpu? Won't the waiter migrate to other cpus? Can
apf_task_wait() start on a different cpu than the one we got our apf on?
quoted text > + init_waitqueue_head(&n.wq);
> + hlist_add_head(&n.link,&b->list);
> + spin_unlock(&b->lock);
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + prepare_to_wait(&n.wq,&wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
In theory we could make it interruptible if it's in user context. The
signal could arrive before the page and we could handle it. Not worth
the complexity I think (having a wakeup with no task to wake).
The user might be confused why they have uninterruptible tasks and no
disk load, but more than likely they're confused already, so no big loss.
quoted text > + if (hlist_unhashed(&n.link))
> + break;
> + schedule();
> + }
> + finish_wait(&n.wq,&wait);
> +
> + return;
> +}
> +
> +static void apf_task_wake_one(struct kvm_task_sleep_node *n)
> +{
> + hlist_del_init(&n->link);
> + if (waitqueue_active(&n->wq))
> + wake_up(&n->wq);
> +}
> +
> +static void apf_task_wake(u32 token)
> +{
> + u32 key = hash_32(token, KVM_TASK_SLEEP_HASHBITS);
> + struct kvm_task_sleep_head *b =&async_pf_sleepers[key];
> + struct kvm_task_sleep_node *n;
> +
> +again:
> + spin_lock(&b->lock);
> + n = _find_apf_task(b, token);
> + if (!n) {
> + /*
> + * async PF was not yet handled.
> + * Add dummy entry for the token.
> + */
> + n = kmalloc(sizeof(*n), GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (!n) {
> + /*
> + * Allocation failed! Busy wait while other vcpu
> + * handles async PF.
> + */
In guest code, please use 'cpu', not 'vcpu'.
quoted text > + spin_unlock(&b->lock);
> + cpu_relax();
> + goto again;
> + }
The other cpu might be waiting for us to yield. We can fix it later
with the the pv spinlock infrastructure.
Or, we can avoid the allocation. If at most one apf can be pending (is
this true?), we can use a per-cpu variable for this dummy entry.
quoted text > + n->token = token;
> + n->cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + init_waitqueue_head(&n->wq);
> + hlist_add_head(&n->link,&b->list);
> + } else
> + apf_task_wake_one(n);
> + spin_unlock(&b->lock);
> + return;
> +}
> +
> +static void apf_task_wake_all(void)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i< KVM_TASK_SLEEP_HASHSIZE; i++) {
> + struct hlist_node *p, *next;
> + struct kvm_task_sleep_head *b =&async_pf_sleepers[i];
> + spin_lock(&b->lock);
> + hlist_for_each_safe(p, next,&b->list) {
> + struct kvm_task_sleep_node *n =
> + hlist_entry(p, typeof(*n), link);
> + if (n->cpu == smp_processor_id())
> + apf_task_wake_one(n);
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&b->lock);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +dotraplinkage void __kprobes
> +do_async_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code)
> +{
> + u32 reason = 0, token;
> +
> + if (__get_cpu_var(apf_reason).enabled) {
> + reason = __get_cpu_var(apf_reason).reason;
> + __get_cpu_var(apf_reason).reason = 0;
Can per-cpu vars be in vmalloc space? if so they may trigger nested faults.
I don't think that's the case for core code, so probably safe here.
quoted text > +
> + token = (u32)read_cr2();
> + }
> +
> + switch (reason) {
> + default:
> + do_page_fault(regs, error_code);
> + break;
> + case KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_NOT_PRESENT:
> + /* page is swapped out by the host. */
> + apf_task_wait(current, token);
> + break;
> + case KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_READY:
> + if (unlikely(token == ~0))
> + apf_task_wake_all();
> + else
> + apf_task_wake(token);
> + break;
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void kvm_mmu_op(void *buffer, unsigned len)
> {
> int r;
> @@ -303,13 +461,25 @@ static struct notifier_block __cpuinitdata kvm_cpu_notifier = {
> };
> #endif
>
> +static void __init kvm_apf_trap_init(void)
> +{
> + set_intr_gate(14,&async_page_fault);
> +}
Nice! Zero impact on non-virt.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
unsubscribe notice 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/ Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH v5 04/12] Provide special async page fault hand ... , Avi Kivity , (Mon Aug 23, 8:48 am)
