[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 14/15] KVM: MTRR: do not map huage page for non-consistent range

On 06/03/2015 03:55 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 03/06/2015 04:56, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 06/01/2015 05:36 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2015 12:59, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>> Currently guest MTRR is completely prohibited if cache snoop is
>>>> supported on
>>>> IOMMU (!noncoherent_dma) and host does the emulation based on the
>>>> knowledge
>>>> from host side, however, host side is not the good point to know
>>>> what the purpose of guest is. A good example is that pass-throughed VGA
>>>> frame buffer is not always UC as host expected
>>> Can you explain how? The original idea was that such a framebuffer
>>> would be kvm_is_reserved_pfn and thus be unconditionally UC.
>> Yes, frame-buffer is always UC in current code, however, UC for
>> frame-buffer causes bad performance.
> Understood now, thanks.
>> So that guest will configure the range to MTRR, this patchset follows
>> guest MTRR and cooperates with guest PAT (ept.VMX_EPT_IPAT_BIT = 0) to
>> emulate guest cache type as guest expects.
> Unlike e.g. CR0.CD=1, UC memory does not snoop the cache to preserve
> coherency. AMD, has special logic to do this, for example:
> - if guest PAT says "UC" and host MTRR says "WB", the processor will not
> cache the memory but will snoop the cache as if CR0.CD=1
> - if guest PAT says "WC" and host (nested page table) PAT says "WB" and
> host MTRR says "WB", the processor will still do write combining but
> also snoop the cache as if CR0.CD=1
> I am worried that the lack of this feature could cause problems if
> guests map QEMU's VGA framebuffer as uncached. We have this problem on
> ARM, so it's not 100% theoretical.

CR0.CD is always 0 in both host and guest, i guess it's why we cleared
CR0.CD and CR0.NW in vmx_set_cr0().

> So, why do you need to always use IPAT=0? Can patch 15 keep the current
> logic for RAM, like this:
> if (is_mmio || kvm_arch_has_noncoherent_dma(vcpu->kvm))
> ret = kvm_mtrr_get_guest_memory_type(vcpu, gfn) <<
> else

Yeah, it's okay, actually we considered this way, however
- it's light enough, it did not hurt guest performance based on our
- the logic has always used for noncherent_dma case, extend it to
normal case should have low risk and also help us to check the logic.
- completely follow MTRRS spec would be better than host hides it.

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-04 11:01    [W:0.132 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site