Re: [PATCH 02/11] Add "handle page fault" PV helper.

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:29:41PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:12:48PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 10:22:14AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > * Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > > > > index f4cee90..14707dc 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > > > > @@ -952,6 +952,9 @@ do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code)
> > > > > >  	int write;
> > > > > >  	int fault;
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > +	if (arch_handle_page_fault(regs, error_code))
> > > > > > +		return;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch is not acceptable unless it's done cleaner. Currently we 
> > > > > already have 3 callbacks in do_page_fault() (kmemcheck, mmiotrace, 
> > > > > notifier), and this adds a fourth one. Please consolidate them into a 
> > > > > single callback site, this is a hotpath on x86.
> > > > > 
> > > > This call is patched out by paravirt patching mechanism so overhead 
> > > > should be zero for non paravirt cases. [...]
> > > 
> > > arch_handle_page_fault() isnt upstream yet - precisely what is the 
> > > instruction sequence injected into do_page_fault() in the patched-out 
> > > case?
> > 
> > It is introduced by the same patch. The instruction inserted is:
> >  xor %rax, %rax
> 
> ok.
> 
> My observations still stand:
> 
> > > > [...] What do you want to achieve by consolidate them into single 
> > > > callback? [...]
> > > 
> > > Less bloat in a hotpath and a shared callback infrastructure.
> > > 
> > > > [...] I mean the code will still exist and will have to be executed on 
> > > > every #PF. Is the goal to move them out of line?
> > > 
> > > The goal is to have a single callback site for all the users - which 
> > > call-site is patched out ideally - on non-paravirt too if needed. Most 
> > > of these callbacks/notifier-chains have are inactive most of the time.
> > > 
> > > I.e. a very low overhead 'conditional callback' facility, and a single 
> > > one - not just lots of them sprinkled around the code.
> 
> looks like a golden opportunity to get this right.
> 
I'll look into it. Expect questions from me ;)

--
			Gleb.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>