On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:06:29PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.05.2022 15:25, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:41:23AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/pt-contig-markers.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
> >> +#ifndef __ASM_X86_PT_CONTIG_MARKERS_H
> >> +#define __ASM_X86_PT_CONTIG_MARKERS_H
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * Short of having function templates in C, the function defined below is
> >> + * intended to be used by multiple parties interested in recording the
> >> + * degree of contiguity in mappings by a single page table.
> >> + *
> >> + * Scheme: Every entry records the order of contiguous successive entries,
> >> + * up to the maximum order covered by that entry (which is the number of
> >> + * clear low bits in its index, with entry 0 being the exception using
> >> + * the base-2 logarithm of the number of entries in a single page table).
> >> + * While a few entries need touching upon update, knowing whether the
> >> + * table is fully contiguous (and can hence be replaced by a higher level
> >> + * leaf entry) is then possible by simply looking at entry 0's marker.
> >> + *
> >> + * Prereqs:
> >> + * - CONTIG_MASK needs to be #define-d, to a value having at least 4
> >> + * contiguous bits (ignored by hardware), before including this file,
> >> + * - page tables to be passed here need to be initialized with correct
> >> + * markers.
> >
> > Not sure it's very relevant, but might we worth adding that:
> >
> > - Null entries must have the PTE zeroed except for the CONTIG_MASK
> > region in order to be considered as inactive.
>
> NP, I've added an item along these lines.
>
> >> +static bool pt_update_contig_markers(uint64_t *pt, unsigned int idx,
> >> + unsigned int level, enum PTE_kind
> >> kind)
> >> +{
> >> + unsigned int b, i = idx;
> >> + unsigned int shift = (level - 1) * CONTIG_LEVEL_SHIFT + PAGE_SHIFT;
> >> +
> >> + ASSERT(idx < CONTIG_NR);
> >> + ASSERT(!(pt[idx] & CONTIG_MASK));
> >> +
> >> + /* Step 1: Reduce markers in lower numbered entries. */
> >> + while ( i )
> >> + {
> >> + b = find_first_set_bit(i);
> >> + i &= ~(1U << b);
> >> + if ( GET_MARKER(pt[i]) > b )
> >> + SET_MARKER(pt[i], b);
> >
> > Can't you exit early when you find an entry that already has the
> > to-be-set contiguous marker <= b, as lower numbered entries will then
> > also be <= b'?
> >
> > Ie:
> >
> > if ( GET_MARKER(pt[i]) <= b )
> > break;
> > else
> > SET_MARKER(pt[i], b);
>
> Almost - I think it would need to be
>
> if ( GET_MARKER(pt[i]) < b )
> break;
> if ( GET_MARKER(pt[i]) > b )
> SET_MARKER(pt[i], b);
I guess I'm slightly confused, but if marker at i is <= b, then all
following markers will also be <=, and hence could be skipped?
Not sure why we need to keep iterating if GET_MARKER(pt[i]) == b.
FWIW, you could even do:
if ( GET_MARKER(pt[i]) <= b )
break;
SET_MARKER(pt[i], b);
Which would keep the conditionals to 1 like it currently is.
>
> or, accepting redundant updates,
>
> if ( GET_MARKER(pt[i]) < b )
> break;
> SET_MARKER(pt[i], b);
>
> . Neither the redundant updates nor the extra (easily mis-predicted)
> conditional looked very appealing to me, but I guess I could change
> this if you are convinced that's better than continuing a loop with
> at most 9 (typically less) iterations.
Well, I think I at least partly understood the logic. Not sure
whether it's worth adding the conditional or just assuming that
continuing the loop is going to be cheaper. Might be worth adding a
comment that we choose to explicitly not add an extra conditional to
check for early exit, because we assume that to be more expensive than
just continuing.
Thanks, Roger.
