[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] x86/PoD: defer nested P2M flushes
- To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 12:50:24 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=PdSCyaJ77SNV6Fu86xcQ6jM8t+zvodwnQIieN78m3So=; b=ao0Yg6fYh48iYUbCHy8ASnJdrLJHxFFbJ2BshbwWyp29Fb7rj54YxR3R3XJB2Tv4O7V/+BSOF6wZWe3D64KCGStdktBeY9vtsucqh32KpAO5OSXWaO5OxgWu36vuxTPQpiX5vjU1Wc+NcAFthAoIh0WUFN4OIFYZUQe5rYooGEQWsLxlLXkPCnRr86966NBT10x3H6/bUdhS+d9hm4uTGyh6QvIQL0r6P4MdcqD056NO5S6Km+IUpBsiLYsR51wsZXMqOM052CRTbpZXoI+2/4mlYVkOQwD7c7g4Zj9rjIGRatrH1kqlmjtsxRDY9UYI8P5yEI60AZmpof1Gb9kTIQ==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=j4ROPjMjblziqLt4GIbz0h7jI5cc2+qJDmFPHPdFSxFSpAwMBZ/kUCX4M4lIJWSviokGZxG+HRnVorCTfvnCwTpIeyj6VM5OW3b2riL6RlvLgp8Hso5AzdHtmOs2uMFew6QGFHgZzzb90GoOq+57g7VlsOKyhGN5UdqKSne7Tvuq2/hQ+PIwWHm41VKMWjrrIi2rOcyoJnxtvwIIOXO0PNU/nt6gNM4LFsNOoZwia5Y8eHDEzRFvcJcILs+LCAay1NlCnCdxNzv7EV2o+bi+saPUhQ8tRuVMaEql6C4SuC9AMAnLJdiSOVibB0776bZauwSx3kayXTeVekwf6HIZGg==
- Authentication-results: citrix.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;citrix.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:50:37 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 19.10.2021 12:39, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 10:19:57AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.10.2021 10:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 19.10.2021 10:09, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:17:08AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> @@ -1229,8 +1242,9 @@ p2m_pod_demand_populate(struct p2m_domai
>>>>> __trace_var(TRC_MEM_POD_POPULATE, 0, sizeof(t), &t);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> - pod_unlock(p2m);
>>>>> + pod_unlock_and_flush(p2m);
>>>>> return true;
>>>>> +
>>>>> out_of_memory:
>>>>> pod_unlock(p2m);
>>>>
>>>> Don't you need to set defer_nested_flush = false in the out_of_memory
>>>> label? (as you don't call pod_unlock_and_flush that would do it)
>>>
>>> Yes of course - thanks for spotting. I had pod_unlock_and_flush() here
>>> too initially, and when switching back I forgot to convert rather than
>>> just delete that.
>>
>> Oh, wait, that was on purpose: There's no point clearing the flag
>> when the next thing we do is invoke domain_crash(). If it wasn't
>> that way, I don't think I could avoid using pod_unlock_and_flush()
>> here as well.
>
> Oh, I see. We would need to be careful if that domain crash is ever
> removed.
Well, I can change the call there as well. Doing so would seem preferable
over adding a respective comment there. I didn't do so originally because
as it stands this would be meaningless code churn. Let me know what you
think.
Jan
|
