Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 3/3] x86/ioreq server: Add HVMOP to map guest ram with p2m_ioreq_server to an ioreq server.

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

On 6/20/2016 7:20 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 20.06.16 at 13:06, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 6/20/2016 6:45 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 20.06.16 at 12:30, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 6/20/2016 6:10 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > On 20/06/16 10:03, Yu Zhang wrote:
> > > > > > So one solution is to disallow the log dirty feature in XenGT, i.e. just
> > > > > > return failure when enable_logdirty()
> > > > > > is called in toolstack. But I'm afraid this will restrict XenGT's future
> > > > > > live migration feature.
> > > > > I don't understand this -- you can return -EBUSY if live migration is
> > > > > attempted while there are outstanding ioreq_server entries for the time
> > > > > being, and at some point in the future when this actually works, you can
> > > > > return success.
> > > > Well, the problem is we cannot easily tell if there's any outstanding
> > > > p2m_ioreq_server entries.
> > > That's easy to address: Keep a running count.
> > Oh, sorry, let me try to clarify: here by "outstanding p2m_ioreq_server
> > entries", I mean the
> > entries with p2m_ioreq_server type which have not been set back to
> > p2m_ram_rw by device
> > model when the ioreq server detaches. But with asynchronous resetting,
> > we can not differentiate
> > these entries with the normal write protected ones which also have the
> > p2m_ioreq_server set.
> I guess I'm missing something here, because I can't see why we
> can't distinguish them (and also can't arrange for that).
Because both have the same p2m type and access rights.

Sorry, it's my duty to explain this more clearly, but I just realized 
it's hard to describe. :)
Let me try to elaborate this with an example:

Suppose resolve_misconfig() is modified to change all p2m_ioreq_server 
entries(which also
have e.recalc flag turned on) back to p2m_ram_rw. And suppose we have 
ioreq server 1, which
emulates gfn A, and ioreq server 2 which emulates gfn B:

1> At the beginning, ioreq server 1 is attached to p2m_ioreq_server, and 
gfn A is write protected
by setting it to p2m_ioreq_server;

2> ioreq server 1 is detached from p2m_ioreq_server, left gfn A's p2m 
type unchanged;
3> After the detachment of ioreq server 1, 
p2m_change_entry_type_global() is called, all ept
entries are invalidated;

4> Later, ioreq server 2 is attached to p2m_ioreq_server;

5> Gfn B is set to p2m_ioreq_server, although its corresponding ept 
entry was invalidated,
ept_set_entry() will trigger resolve_misconfig(), which will set the p2m 
type of gfn B back to
p2m_ram_rw;

6> ept_set_entry() will set gfn B's p2m type to p2m_ioreq_server next; 
And now, we have two
ept entries with p2m_ioreq_server type - gfn A's and gfn B's.

With no live migration, things could work fine - later accesses to gfn A 
will ultimately change
its type back to p2m_ram_rw.

However, if live migration is started(all pte entries invalidated 
again), resolve_misconfig() would
change both gfn A's and gfn B's p2m type back to p2m_ram_rw, which means 
the emulation of
gfn B would fail.

I tried to further extend the log dirty logic to solve this conflict, 
but failed, because we do not
know for sure when the resetting of gfn A will be performed and the code 
can not easily tell
the different expectations for gfn A and gfn B because they both have 
the same p2m type
and access rights.

Hope you can understand this problem and I would be very appreciated if 
you have any suggestion.
Anyway, thanks for your patience! :)

Thanks
yu


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