Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] v2: Nested-p2m cleanups and locking changes

[Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 16:48 +0100 on 27 Jun (1309193311), Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 14:15 +0100 on 27 Jun (1309184128), Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 14:23 +0200 on 27 Jun (1309184586), Christoph Egger wrote:
> > > >  - Why is there a 10x increase in IPIs after this series?  I don't see
> > > >    what sequence of events sets the relevant cpumask bits to make this
> > > >    happen.
> > > 
> > > In patch 1 the code that sends the IPIs was outside of the loop and
> > > moved into the loop.
> > 
> > Well, yes, but I don't see what that causes 10x IPIs, unless the vcpus
> > are burning through np2m tables very quickly indeed.  Maybe removing the
> > extra flushes for TLB control will do the trick.  I'll make a patch...
> 
> I think I get it - it's a race between p2m_flush_nestedp2m() on one CPU
> flushing all the nested P2M tables and a VCPU on another CPU repeatedly
> getting fresh ones.  Try the attached patch, which should cut back the
> major source of p2m_flush_nestedp2m() calls. 
> 
> Writing it, I realised that after my locking fix, p2m_flush_nestedp2m()
> isn't safe because it can run in parallel with p2m_get_nestedp2m, which
> reorders the array it walks.  I'll have to make the LRU-fu independent
> of the array order; should be easy enough but I'll hold off committing
> the current series until I've done it. 

I've just pushed 23633 - 26369, which is this series plus the change to
the LRU code (and a fix to the NULL deref you reported is folded in).
Hopefully that puts nested SVM back in at least as good a state as it
was before my locking-order patch broke it! :)

Cheers,

Tim

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

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel