lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 01/13] KVM: s390: pv: avoid stall notifications for some UVCs
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:49:03 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 28 2021, Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Improve make_secure_pte to avoid stalls when the system is heavily
> > overcommitted. This was especially problematic in
> > kvm_s390_pv_unpack, because of the loop over all pages that needed
> > unpacking.
> >
> > Also fix kvm_s390_pv_init_vm to avoid stalls when the system is
> > heavily overcommitted.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > arch/s390/kvm/pv.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> > index aeb0a15bcbb7..fd0faa51c1bb 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> > @@ -196,11 +196,16 @@ static int make_secure_pte(pte_t *ptep,
> > unsigned long addr, if (!page_ref_freeze(page, expected))
> > return -EBUSY;
> > set_bit(PG_arch_1, &page->flags);
> > - rc = uv_call(0, (u64)uvcb);
> > + rc = __uv_call(0, (u64)uvcb);
> > page_ref_unfreeze(page, expected);
> > - /* Return -ENXIO if the page was not mapped, -EINVAL
> > otherwise */
> > - if (rc)
> > + /*
> > + * Return -ENXIO if the page was not mapped, -EINVAL for
> > other errors.
> > + * If busy or partially completed, return -EAGAIN.
> > + */
> > + if (rc == 1)
> > rc = uvcb->rc == 0x10a ? -ENXIO : -EINVAL;
> > + else if (rc > 1)
> > + rc = -EAGAIN;
> > return rc;
> > }
>
> Possibly dumb question: when does the call return > 1?

this is exactly what Janosch meant :)

the next version will have #defines for the 4 possible CC values.

in short:
0 OK
1 error
2 busy (nothing done, try again)
3 partial (something done but not all, try again)

> gmap_make_secure() will do a wait_on_page_writeback() for -EAGAIN, is
> that always the right thing to do?

it's the easiest way to get to a place where we will be able to
reschedule if needed.

wait_on_page_writeback will probably do nothing in that case because
the page is not in writeback.

(a few minutes later)

actually I have checked, it seems that the -EAGAIN gets eventually
propagated to places where it's not checked properly!

this will need some more fixing

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-29 15:30    [W:0.125 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site