On 05/27/2014 01:19 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:27:31AM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:

quoted

This patch adds support for handling 2nd stage page faults during migration,
it disables faulting in huge pages, and splits up existing huge pages.

Signed-off-by: Mario Smarduch <redacted>
---
 arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c |   36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
index b939312..10e7bf6 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c

@@ -1002,6 +1002,7 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
 	struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *memcache = &vcpu->arch.mmu_page_cache;
 	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
 	pfn_t pfn;
+	bool migration_active;
 
 	write_fault = kvm_is_write_fault(kvm_vcpu_get_hsr(vcpu));
 	if (fault_status == FSC_PERM && !write_fault) {

@@ -1053,12 +1054,23 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
 		return -EFAULT;
 
 	spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
+
+	/*
+	 * Place inside lock to prevent race condition when whole VM is being
+	 * write proteced. Prevent race of huge page install when migration is
+	 * active.
+	 */
+	migration_active = vcpu->kvm->arch.migration_in_progress;
+
 	if (mmu_notifier_retry(kvm, mmu_seq))
 		goto out_unlock;
-	if (!hugetlb && !force_pte)
+
+	/* When migrating don't spend cycles coalescing huge pages */
+	if (!hugetlb && !force_pte && !migration_active)
 		hugetlb = transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa);
 
-	if (hugetlb) {
+	/* During migration don't install huge pages */

again, all this is not about migration per se, it's about when logging
dirty pages, (which may be commonly used for migration).

Yes that's true , I'll update but until recently (new RFC on qemu list) where
dirty logging is used for getting VM RSS or hot memory regions, I don't see any
other use case.

quoted

+	if (hugetlb && !migration_active) {
 		pmd_t new_pmd = pfn_pmd(pfn, PAGE_S2);
 		new_pmd = pmd_mkhuge(new_pmd);
 		if (writable) {

@@ -1069,6 +1081,23 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
 		ret = stage2_set_pmd_huge(kvm, memcache, fault_ipa, &new_pmd);
 	} else {
 		pte_t new_pte = pfn_pte(pfn, PAGE_S2);
+
+		/*
+		 * If pmd is  mapping a huge page then split it up into
+		 * small pages, when doing live migration.
+		 */
+		if (migration_active) {
+			pmd_t *pmd;
+			if (hugetlb) {
+				pfn += pte_index(fault_ipa);
+				gfn = fault_ipa >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+			}

how can you have hugetlb when we entered this else-clause conditional on
having !hugetlb?

- if(hugetlb && !migration_active)

forces all page faults to enter here while in migration. Huge page entries
are cleared and stage2_set_pte() splits the huge page, and installs the pte
for the fault_ipa. I placed that there since it flows with installing 
a pte as well as splitting a huge page. But your comment on performance
split up huge page vs. deferred  page faulting should move it out of here. 

quoted

+			new_pte = pfn_pte(pfn, PAGE_S2);
+			pmd = stage2_get_pmd(kvm, NULL, fault_ipa);
+			if (pmd && kvm_pmd_huge(*pmd))
+				clear_pmd_entry(kvm, pmd, fault_ipa);

If we have a huge pmd entry, how did we take a fault on there?  Would
that be if a different CPU inserted a huge page entry since we got here,
is this what you're trying to handle?

I'm confused.

I thing this related to the above.

quoted

+		}
+
 		if (writable) {
 			kvm_set_s2pte_writable(&new_pte);
 			kvm_set_pfn_dirty(pfn);

@@ -1077,6 +1106,9 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
 		ret = stage2_set_pte(kvm, memcache, fault_ipa, &new_pte, false);
 	}
 
+	/* Assuming 4k pages, set one bit/page in memslot dirty_bitmap[] */

Assuming? this makes me nervous.  The point is probably that it's
harmless if we're not logging dirty pages, because then nobody reads teh
data structure, and if we are logging, then we are mapping everything
using 4K pages?

It's probably clearer code-wise to condition this on whether or not we
are logging dirty page, and the branch is also likely to be much faster
than the function call to mark_page_dirty.

I'm not sure I get the point. The call is always safe, you either 
have old copy or new copy of memory slot with dirty_bitmap set or not set.
The log read is done while holding kvm slots_lock.

Is the comment related to performance, not supporting multiple page sizes,
or it's unsafe to call mark_page_dirty() under all circumstances, or 
something else? 

quoted

+	if (writable)
+		mark_page_dirty(kvm, gfn);
 
 out_unlock:
 	spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
-- 
1.7.9.5

-Christoffer