[PATCH v6 4/4] add 2nd stage page fault handling during live migration

[Mario Smarduch]

On 05/27/2014 01:19 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:27:31AM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>> This patch adds support for handling 2nd stage page faults during migration,
>> it disables faulting in huge pages, and splits up existing huge pages.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mario Smarduch <m.smarduch at samsung.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c |   36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>> index b939312..10e7bf6 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>> @@ -1002,6 +1002,7 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>  	struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *memcache = &vcpu->arch.mmu_page_cache;
>>  	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>>  	pfn_t pfn;
>> +	bool migration_active;
>>  
>>  	write_fault = kvm_is_write_fault(kvm_vcpu_get_hsr(vcpu));
>>  	if (fault_status == FSC_PERM && !write_fault) {
>> @@ -1053,12 +1054,23 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>  		return -EFAULT;
>>  
>>  	spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Place inside lock to prevent race condition when whole VM is being
>> +	 * write proteced. Prevent race of huge page install when migration is
>> +	 * active.
>> +	 */
>> +	migration_active = vcpu->kvm->arch.migration_in_progress;
>> +
>>  	if (mmu_notifier_retry(kvm, mmu_seq))
>>  		goto out_unlock;
>> -	if (!hugetlb && !force_pte)
>> +
>> +	/* When migrating don't spend cycles coalescing huge pages */
>> +	if (!hugetlb && !force_pte && !migration_active)
>>  		hugetlb = transparent_hugepage_adjust(&pfn, &fault_ipa);
>>  
>> -	if (hugetlb) {
>> +	/* During migration don't install huge pages */
> 
> again, all this is not about migration per se, it's about when logging
> dirty pages, (which may be commonly used for migration).
> 

Yes that's true , I'll update but until recently (new RFC on qemu list) where
dirty logging is used for getting VM RSS or hot memory regions, I don't see any
other use case.

>> +	if (hugetlb && !migration_active) {
>>  		pmd_t new_pmd = pfn_pmd(pfn, PAGE_S2);
>>  		new_pmd = pmd_mkhuge(new_pmd);
>>  		if (writable) {
>> @@ -1069,6 +1081,23 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>  		ret = stage2_set_pmd_huge(kvm, memcache, fault_ipa, &new_pmd);
>>  	} else {
>>  		pte_t new_pte = pfn_pte(pfn, PAGE_S2);
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * If pmd is  mapping a huge page then split it up into
>> +		 * small pages, when doing live migration.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (migration_active) {
>> +			pmd_t *pmd;
>> +			if (hugetlb) {
>> +				pfn += pte_index(fault_ipa);
>> +				gfn = fault_ipa >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> +			}
> 
> how can you have hugetlb when we entered this else-clause conditional on
> having !hugetlb?
> 
- if(hugetlb && !migration_active)

forces all page faults to enter here while in migration. Huge page entries
are cleared and stage2_set_pte() splits the huge page, and installs the pte
for the fault_ipa. I placed that there since it flows with installing 
a pte as well as splitting a huge page. But your comment on performance
split up huge page vs. deferred  page faulting should move it out of here. 


>> +			new_pte = pfn_pte(pfn, PAGE_S2);
>> +			pmd = stage2_get_pmd(kvm, NULL, fault_ipa);
>> +			if (pmd && kvm_pmd_huge(*pmd))
>> +				clear_pmd_entry(kvm, pmd, fault_ipa);
> 
> If we have a huge pmd entry, how did we take a fault on there?  Would
> that be if a different CPU inserted a huge page entry since we got here,
> is this what you're trying to handle?
> 
> I'm confused.
> 

I thing this related to the above.

>> +		}
>> +
>>  		if (writable) {
>>  			kvm_set_s2pte_writable(&new_pte);
>>  			kvm_set_pfn_dirty(pfn);
>> @@ -1077,6 +1106,9 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>  		ret = stage2_set_pte(kvm, memcache, fault_ipa, &new_pte, false);
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	/* Assuming 4k pages, set one bit/page in memslot dirty_bitmap[] */
> 
> Assuming? this makes me nervous.  The point is probably that it's
> harmless if we're not logging dirty pages, because then nobody reads teh
> data structure, and if we are logging, then we are mapping everything
> using 4K pages?
> 
> It's probably clearer code-wise to condition this on whether or not we
> are logging dirty page, and the branch is also likely to be much faster
> than the function call to mark_page_dirty.
> 

I'm not sure I get the point. The call is always safe, you either 
have old copy or new copy of memory slot with dirty_bitmap set or not set.
The log read is done while holding kvm slots_lock.

Is the comment related to performance, not supporting multiple page sizes,
or it's unsafe to call mark_page_dirty() under all circumstances, or 
something else? 


>> +	if (writable)
>> +		mark_page_dirty(kvm, gfn);
>>  
>>  out_unlock:
>>  	spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>> -- 
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
> 
> -Christoffer
>