From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale•com>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse•de>
Cc: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@freescale•com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists•ozlabs.org, kvm@vger•kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: PPC: Book3E: Get vcpu's last instruction for emulation
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:46:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1373395605.8183.198@snotra> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51DC4C00.70509@suse.de> (from agraf@suse.de on Tue Jul 9 12:44:32 2013)
On 07/09/2013 12:44:32 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 07/09/2013 07:13 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 07/08/2013 08:39:05 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>=20
>>> On 28.06.2013, at 11:20, Mihai Caraman wrote:
>>>=20
>>> > lwepx faults needs to be handled by KVM and this implies =20
>>> additional code
>>> > in DO_KVM macro to identify the source of the exception =20
>>> originated from
>>> > host context. This requires to check the Exception Syndrome =20
>>> Register
>>> > (ESR[EPID]) and External PID Load Context Register (EPLC[EGS]) =20
>>> for DTB_MISS,
>>> > DSI and LRAT exceptions which is too intrusive for the host.
>>> >
>>> > Get rid of lwepx and acquire last instuction in =20
>>> kvmppc_handle_exit() by
>>> > searching for the physical address and kmap it. This fixes an =20
>>> infinite loop
>>>=20
>>> What's the difference in speed for this?
>>>=20
>>> Also, could we call lwepx later in host code, when =20
>>> kvmppc_get_last_inst() gets invoked?
>>=20
>> Any use of lwepx is problematic unless we want to add overhead to =20
>> the main Linux TLB miss handler.
>=20
> What exactly would be missing?
If lwepx faults, it goes to the normal host TLB miss handler. Without =20
adding code to it to recognize that it's an external-PID fault, it will =20
try to search the normal Linux page tables and insert a normal host =20
entry. If it thinks it has succeeded, it will retry the instruction =20
rather than search for an exception handler. The instruction will =20
fault again, and you get a hang.
> I'd also still like to see some performance benchmarks on this to =20
> make sure we're not walking into a bad direction.
I doubt it'll be significantly different. There's overhead involved in =20
setting up for lwepx as well. It doesn't hurt to test, though this is =20
a functional correctness issue, so I'm not sure what better =20
alternatives we have. I don't want to slow down non-KVM TLB misses for =20
this.
>>> > + addr =3D (mas7_mas3 & (~0ULL << psize_shift)) |
>>> > + (geaddr & ((1ULL << psize_shift) - 1ULL));
>>> > +
>>> > + /* Map a page and get guest's instruction */
>>> > + page =3D pfn_to_page(addr >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>>>=20
>>> So it seems to me like you're jumping through a lot of hoops to =20
>>> make sure this works for LRAT and non-LRAT at the same time. Can't =20
>>> we just treat them as the different things they are?
>>>=20
>>> What if we have different MMU backends for LRAT and non-LRAT? The =20
>>> non-LRAT case could then try lwepx, if that fails, fall back to =20
>>> read the shadow TLB. For the LRAT case, we'd do lwepx, if that =20
>>> fails fall back to this logic.
>>=20
>> This isn't about LRAT; it's about hardware threads. It also fixes =20
>> the handling of execute-only pages on current chips.
>=20
> On non-LRAT systems we could always check our shadow copy of the =20
> guest's TLB, no? I'd really like to know what the performance =20
> difference would be for the 2 approaches.
I suspect that tlbsx is faster, or at worst similar. And unlike =20
comparing tlbsx to lwepx (not counting a fix for the threading =20
problem), we don't already have code to search the guest TLB, so =20
testing would be more work.
-Scott=
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-09 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-28 9:20 [PATCH 1/2] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Revert "add load inst fixup" Mihai Caraman
2013-06-28 9:20 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: PPC: Book3E: Get vcpu's last instruction for emulation Mihai Caraman
2013-07-08 13:39 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-09 17:13 ` Scott Wood
2013-07-09 17:44 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-09 18:46 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2013-07-09 21:44 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-10 0:06 ` Scott Wood
2013-07-10 10:15 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-10 18:42 ` Scott Wood
2013-07-10 22:50 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-11 0:15 ` Scott Wood
2013-07-11 0:17 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-09 21:45 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-10 0:12 ` Scott Wood
2013-07-10 10:18 ` Alexander Graf
2013-07-10 18:37 ` Scott Wood
2013-07-10 22:48 ` Alexander Graf
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-06-06 16:11 [PATCH 1/2] KVM: PPC: e500mc: Revert "add load inst fixup" Mihai Caraman
2013-06-06 16:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: PPC: Book3E: Get vcpu's last instruction for emulation Mihai Caraman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1373395605.8183.198@snotra \
--to=scottwood@freescale$(echo .)com \
--cc=agraf@suse$(echo .)de \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists$(echo .)ozlabs.org \
--cc=mihai.caraman@freescale$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox