[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] xen: use idle vcpus to scrub pages
Hi Jan & Konrad, On 07/01/2014 08:59 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 01.07.14 at 14:25, <bob.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 07/01/2014 05:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 30.06.14 at 15:39, <lliubbo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> @@ -948,6 +954,7 @@ static void free_heap_pages( >>>> { >>>> if ( !tainted ) >>>> { >>>> + node_need_scrub[node] = 1; >>>> for ( i = 0; i < (1 << order); i++ ) >>>> pg[i].count_info |= PGC_need_scrub; >>>> } >>> >>> Iirc it was more than this single place where you set >>> PGC_need_scrub, and hence where you'd now need to set the >>> other flag too. >>> >> >> I'm afraid this is the only place where PGC_need_scrub was set. > > Ah, indeed - I misremembered others, they are all tests for the flag. > >> I'm sorry for all of the coding style problems. >> >> By the way is there any script which can be used to check the code >> before submitting? Something like ./scripts/checkpatch.pl under linux. > > No, there isn't. But avoiding (or spotting) hard tabs should be easy > enough, and other things you ought to simply inspect your patch for > - after all that's no different from what reviewers do. > >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + /* free percpu free list */ >>>> + if ( !page_list_empty(local_free_list) ) >>>> + { >>>> + spin_lock(&heap_lock); >>>> + page_list_for_each_safe( pg, tmp, local_free_list ) >>>> + { >>>> + order = PFN_ORDER(pg); >>>> + page_list_del(pg, local_free_list); >>>> + for ( i = 0; i < (1 << order); i++ ) >>>> + { >>>> + pg[i].count_info |= PGC_state_free; >>>> + pg[i].count_info &= ~PGC_need_scrub; >>> >>> This needs to happen earlier - the scrub flag should be cleared right >>> after scrubbing, and the free flag should imo be set when the page >>> gets freed. That's for two reasons: >>> 1) Hypervisor allocations don't need scrubbed pages, i.e. they can >>> allocate memory regardless of the scrub flag's state. >> >> AFAIR, the reason I set those flags here is to avoid a panic happen. > > That's pretty vague a statement. > >>> 2) You still detain the memory on the local lists from allocation. On a >>> many-node system, the 16Mb per node can certainly sum up (which >>> is not to say that I don't view the 16Mb on a single node as already >>> problematic). >> >> Right, but we can adjust SCRUB_BATCH_ORDER. >> Anyway I'll take a retry as you suggested. > > You should really drop the idea of removing pages temporarily. > All you need to do is make sure a page being allocated and getting > simultaneously scrubbed by another CPU won't get passed to the > caller until the scrubbing finished. In particular it's no problem if > the allocating CPU occasionally ends up scrubbing a page already > being scrubbed elsewhere. > After so many days I haven't make a workable solution if don't remove pages temporarily. The hardest part is iterating the heap free list without holding heap_lock because if holding the lock it might be heavy lock contention. So do you think it's acceptable if fixed all other concerns about this patch? And there is another idea based on the assumption that only guest allocation need all pages to be scrubbed(It's safe for xen hypervisor to use an un-scrubbed page): 1. set the need_scrub flag in free_heap_pages(). 2. alloc pages from heap free list, don't scrub and neither clear the need_scrub flag. 3. When the guest accessing the real memory(machine pages) the first time, page fault should happen. We track this event and before build the right PFN to MFN page table mappings(correct me if it doesn't work as this), at this place scrub the page if the need_scrub flag was set. By this way only guest real used pages are needed scrubbing and the time is scattered. How do you think of this solution? -- Regards, -Bob _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |