From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 04/19] KVM: x86: mmu: allow to enable write tracking externally
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 18:53:58 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ad3a01ffe9c6f7fa40a4b51ac88d8fad56606435.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7c4cf32dca42ab84bdb427a9e4862dbf5509f961.camel@redhat.com>
On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 10:46 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-07-25 at 16:08 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2022-05-22 at 13:22 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2022-05-19 at 16:37 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -5753,6 +5752,10 @@ int kvm_mmu_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > Now for nested AVIC, this is what I would like to do:
> > >
> > > - just like mmu, I prefer to register the write tracking notifier, when the
> > > VM is created.
> > >
> > > - just like mmu, write tracking should only be enabled when nested AVIC is
> > > actually used first time, so that write tracking is not always enabled when
> > > you just boot a VM with nested avic supported, since the VM might not use
> > > nested at all.
> > >
> > > Thus I either need to use the __kvm_page_track_register_notifier too for AVIC
> > > (and thus need to export it) or I need to have a boolean
> > > (nested_avic_was_used_once) and register the write tracking notifier only
> > > when false and do it not on VM creation but on first attempt to use nested
> > > AVIC.
> > >
> > > Do you think this is worth it? I mean there is some value of registering the
> > > notifier only when needed (this way it is not called for nothing) but it does
> > > complicate things a bit.
> >
> > Compared to everything else that you're doing in the nested AVIC code, refcounting
> > the shared kvm_page_track_notifier_node object is a trivial amount of complexity.
> Makes sense.
>
> > And on that topic, do you have performance numbers to justify using a single
> > shared node? E.g. if every table instance has its own notifier, then no additional
> > refcounting is needed.
>
> The thing is that KVM goes over the list of notifiers and calls them for every write from the emulator
> in fact even just for mmio write, and when you enable write tracking on a page,
> you just write protect the page and add a mark in the page track array, which is roughly
>
> 'don't install spte, don't install mmio spte, but just emulate the page fault if it hits this page'
>
> So adding more than a bare minimum to this list, seems just a bit wrong.
>
>
> > It's not obvious that a shared node will provide better
> > performance, e.g. if there are only a handful of AVIC tables being shadowed, then
> > a linear walk of all nodes is likely fast enough, and doesn't bring the risk of
> > a write potentially being stalled due to having to acquire a VM-scoped mutex.
>
> The thing is that if I register multiple notifiers, they all will be called anyway,
> but yes I can use container_of, and discover which table the notifier belongs to,
> instead of having a hash table where I lookup the GFN of the fault.
>
> The above means practically that all the shadow physid tables will be in a linear
> list of notifiers, so I could indeed avoid per vm mutex on the write tracking,
> however for simplicity I probably will still need it because I do modify the page,
> and having per physid table mutex complicates things.
>
> Currently in my code the locking is very simple and somewhat dumb, but the performance
> is very good because the code isn't executed often, most of the time the AVIC hardware
> works alone without any VM exits.
>
> Once the code is accepted upstream, it's one of the things that can be improved.
>
>
> Note though that I still need a hash table and a mutex because on each VM entry,
> the guest can use a different physid table, so I need to lookup it, and create it,
> if not found, which would require read/write of the hash table and thus a mutex.
>
>
>
> > > I can also stash this boolean (like 'bool registered;') into the 'struct
> > > kvm_page_track_notifier_node', and thus allow the
> > > kvm_page_track_register_notifier to be called more that once - then I can
> > > also get rid of __kvm_page_track_register_notifier.
> >
> > No, allowing redundant registration without proper refcounting leads to pain,
> > e.g. X registers, Y registers, X unregisters, kaboom.
> >
>
> True, but then what about adding a refcount to 'struct kvm_page_track_notifier_node'
> instead of a boolean, and allowing redundant registration?
> Probably not worth it, in which case I am OK to add a refcount to my avic code.
>
> Or maybe just scrap the whole thing and just leave registration and activation of the
> write tracking as two separate things? Honestly now that looks like the most clean
> solution.
Kind ping on this. Do you still want me to enable write tracking on the notifier registeration,
or scrap the idea?
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
>
> Best regards,
> Maxim Levitsky
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-01 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-27 20:02 [RFC PATCH v3 00/19] RFC: nested AVIC Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:02 ` [RFC PATCH v3 01/19] KVM: x86: document AVIC/APICv inhibit reasons Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-18 15:56 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-18 17:13 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:02 ` [RFC PATCH v3 02/19] KVM: x86: inhibit APICv/AVIC when the guest and/or host changes apic id/base from the defaults Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-18 8:28 ` Chao Gao
2022-05-18 9:50 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-18 11:51 ` Chao Gao
2022-05-18 12:36 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-18 15:39 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-18 17:15 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-19 16:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-22 9:03 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-22 14:47 ` Jim Mattson
2022-05-23 6:50 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-23 17:22 ` Jim Mattson
2022-05-23 17:31 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-06-23 9:44 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:02 ` [RFC PATCH v3 03/19] KVM: x86: SVM: remove avic's broken code that updated APIC ID Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-19 16:10 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-22 9:01 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-23 17:19 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-27 20:02 ` [RFC PATCH v3 04/19] KVM: x86: mmu: allow to enable write tracking externally Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-19 16:27 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-22 10:21 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-19 16:37 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-22 10:22 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-07-20 14:42 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-07-25 16:08 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-07-28 7:46 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-08-01 15:53 ` Maxim Levitsky [this message]
2022-08-01 17:20 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-08-08 13:13 ` Nested AVIC design (was:Re: [RFC PATCH v3 04/19] KVM: x86: mmu: allow to enable write tracking externally) Maxim Levitsky
2022-09-29 22:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-10-03 7:27 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-11-10 0:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 05/19] x86: KVMGT: use kvm_page_track_write_tracking_enable Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-19 16:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 06/19] KVM: x86: mmu: add gfn_in_memslot helper Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-19 16:43 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-22 10:22 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-22 12:12 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 07/19] KVM: x86: mmu: tweak fast path for emulation of access to nested NPT pages Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/19] KVM: x86: SVM: move avic state to separate struct Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 09/19] KVM: x86: nSVM: add nested AVIC tracepoints Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 10/19] KVM: x86: nSVM: implement AVIC's physid/logid table access helpers Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 11/19] KVM: x86: nSVM: implement shadowing of AVIC's physical id table Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 12/19] KVM: x86: nSVM: make nested AVIC physid write tracking be aware of the host scheduling Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 13/19] KVM: x86: nSVM: wire nested AVIC to nested guest entry/exit Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 14/19] KVM: x86: rename .set_apic_access_page_addr to reload_apic_access_page Maxim Levitsky
2022-05-19 16:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-05-22 10:22 ` Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 15/19] KVM: x86: nSVM: add code to reload AVIC physid table when it is invalidated Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 16/19] KVM: x86: nSVM: implement support for nested AVIC vmexits Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 17/19] KVM: x86: nSVM: implement nested AVIC doorbell emulation Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 18/19] KVM: x86: SVM/nSVM: add optional non strict AVIC doorbell mode Maxim Levitsky
2022-04-27 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v3 19/19] KVM: x86: nSVM: expose the nested AVIC to the guest Maxim Levitsky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ad3a01ffe9c6f7fa40a4b51ac88d8fad56606435.camel@redhat.com \
--to=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=zhi.a.wang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).