Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 4/5] x86/ioreq server: Asynchronously reset outstanding p2m_ioreq_server entries.

[Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/23/2017 5:00 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 23.03.17 at 04:23, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 3/22/2017 10:29 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 21.03.17 at 03:52, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
> > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
> > > > @@ -949,6 +949,14 @@ int hvm_map_mem_type_to_ioreq_server(struct domain *d, 
> > > > ioservid_t id,
> > > >    
> > > >        spin_unlock_recursive(&d->arch.hvm_domain.ioreq_server.lock);
> > > >    
> > > > +    if ( rc == 0 && flags == 0 )
> > > > +    {
> > > > +        struct p2m_domain *p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(d);
> > > > +
> > > > +        if ( read_atomic(&p2m->ioreq.entry_count) )
> > > > +            p2m_change_entry_type_global(d, p2m_ioreq_server, p2m_ram_rw);
> > > > +    }
> > > If you do this after dropping the lock, don't you risk a race with
> > > another server mapping the type to itself?
> > I believe it's OK. Remaining p2m_ioreq_server entries still needs to be
> > cleaned anyway.
> Are you refusing a new server mapping the type before being
> done with the cleanup?
No. I meant even a new server is mapped, we can still sweep the p2m 
table later asynchronously.
But this reminds me other point - will a dm op be interrupted by another 
one, or should it?
Since we have patch 5/5 which sweep the p2m table right after the unmap 
happens, maybe
we should refuse any mapping requirement if there's remaining 
p2m_ioreq_server entries.
> > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-ept.c
> > > > @@ -544,6 +544,12 @@ static int resolve_misconfig(struct p2m_domain *p2m,
> > > > unsigned long gfn)
> > > >                        e.ipat = ipat;
> > > >                        if ( e.recalc && p2m_is_changeable(e.sa_p2mt) )
> > > >                        {
> > > > +                         if ( e.sa_p2mt == p2m_ioreq_server )
> > > > +                         {
> > > > +                             p2m->ioreq.entry_count--;
> > > > +                             ASSERT(p2m->ioreq.entry_count >= 0);
> > > If you did the ASSERT() first (using > 0), you wouldn't need the
> > > type be a signed one, doubling the valid value range (even if
> > > right now the full 64 bits can't be used anyway, but it would be
> > > one less thing to worry about once we get 6-level page tables).
> > Well, entry_count counts only for 4K pages, so even if the guest
> > physical address
> > width is extended up to 64 bit in the future, entry_count will not
> > exceed 2^52(
> > 2^64/2^12).
> Oh, true. Still I'd prefer if you used an unsigned type for a count
> when that's easily possible.
Got it. :)

Yu
> Jan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel