KVM MMU: thinking of shadow page cache
When we cached shadow page tables, one guest page table may have many shadow pages, take below case for example:
(RO+U) ---> |------| __ |------| (W+U ) ---> | GP1 | | | GP2 | (W+P ) ---> |------| |--> |------|
There have 3 kinds of permission mapping to GP1, so we should allocate 3 shadow pages for GP1 and 3 shadow pages for GP2. And it has 3 class permissions(R/W, U/S, X/NX) in x86's architecture, for the worst case, we should allocate 2^3 pages for every paging mapping level.
This waste is caused by that we only set the permission bits in PTE, not in the middle mapping level.
So, i think we can mapping guest page table's permission into cache shadow page table, then it can be shared between many shadow page tables if their map to the same gust physics address. For above case, we only need 2 pages.
Any comments?
Quoted 16 lines · Xiao Guangrong
When we cached shadow page tables, one guest page table may have many shadow pages, take below case for example:
(RO+U) ---> |------| __ |------| (W+U ) ---> | GP1 | | | GP2 | (W+P ) ---> |------| |--> |------|There have 3 kinds of permission mapping to GP1, so we should allocate 3 shadow pages for GP1 and 3 shadow pages for GP2. And it has 3 class
permissions(R/W, U/S, X/NX)in x86's architecture, for the worst case, we should allocate 2^3 pages for every paging mapping level.This waste is caused by that we only set the permission bits in PTE, not in the middle mapping level.
Quoted 7 lines
So, i think we can mapping guest page table's permission into cache shadow page table, then it can be shared between many shadow page tables if their map to the same gust physics address. For above case, we only need 2 pages.
Any comments?
We've considered this in the past, it makes sense. The big question is whether any guests actually map the same page table through PDEs with different permissions (mapping the same page table through multiple PDEs is very common, but always with the same permissions). Do you know of any such guest?
Signature · 1 line
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
Quoted 7 lines · Avi Kivity
Quoted 1 line
We've considered this in the past, it makes sense. The big question is whether any guests actually map the same page table through PDEs with different permissions (mapping the same page table through multiple PDEs is very common, but always with the same permissions). Do you know of any such guest?
I also don't know whether have such guest.
Maybe my idea is no good for current OS, thanks for your comments.
Xiao
Quoted 10 lines · Xiao Guangrong
Quoted 7 lines
We've considered this in the past, it makes sense. The big question is whether any guests actually map the same page table through PDEs with different permissions (mapping the same page table through multiple PDEs is very common, but always with the same permissions). Do you know of any such guest?
I also don't know whether have such guest.
Maybe my idea is no good for current OS, thanks for your comments.
In fact there are plans to make kvm such a guest (when running in nested mode) - when we perform live migration we write-protect all guest pages, and it's reasonable to use the top-level shadow page to write protect all memory at once instead of iterating over all mmu pages. When that goes in, we should also implement your idea.
Signature · 1 line
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function