From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Also record spteps in shadow_page_walk
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 22:59:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMffQriMoxWw2V1f@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210611235701.3941724-6-dmatlack@google.com>
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021, David Matlack wrote:
> In order to use walk_shadow_page_lockless() in fast_page_fault() we need
> to also record the spteps.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 1 +
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h | 3 +++
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index 8140c262f4d3..765f5b01768d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -3538,6 +3538,7 @@ static bool walk_shadow_page_lockless(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 addr,
> spte = mmu_spte_get_lockless(it.sptep);
> walk->last_level = it.level;
> walk->sptes[it.level] = spte;
> + walk->spteps[it.level] = it.sptep;
>
> if (!is_shadow_present_pte(spte))
> break;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
> index 26da6ca30fbf..0fefbd5d6c95 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
> @@ -178,6 +178,9 @@ struct shadow_page_walk {
>
> /* The spte value at each level. */
> u64 sptes[PT64_ROOT_MAX_LEVEL + 1];
> +
> + /* The spte pointers at each level. */
> + u64 *spteps[PT64_ROOT_MAX_LEVEL + 1];
Hrm. I'm not sure how I feel about this patch, or about shadow_page_walk in
general. On the one hand, I like having a common API. On the other hand, I
really don't like mixing two different protection schemes, e.g. this really
should be
tdp_ptep_t spteps;
in order to gain the RCU annotations for TDP, but those RCU annotations are
problematic because the legacy MMU doesn't use RCU to protect its page tables.
I also don't like forcing the caller to hold the "lock" for longer than is
necessary, e.g. get_mmio_spte() doesn't require access to the page tables after
the initial walk, but the common spteps[] kinda sorta forces its hand.
The two use cases (and the only common use cases I can see) have fairly different
requirements. The MMIO check wants the SPTEs at _all_ levels, whereas the fast
page fault handler wants the SPTE _and_ its pointer at a single level. So I
wonder if by providing a super generic API we'd actually increase complexity.
I.e. rather than provide a completely generic API, maybe it would be better to
have two distinct API. That wouldn't fix the tdp_ptep_t issue, but it would at
least bound it to some degree and make the code more obvious. I suspect it would
also reduce the code churn, though that's not necessarily a goal in and of itself.
E.g. for fast_page_fault():
walk_shadow_page_lockless_begin(vcpu);
do {
sptep = get_spte_lockless(..., &spte);
if (!is_shadow_present_pte(spte))
break;
sp = sptep_to_sp(sptep);
if (!is_last_spte(spte, sp->role.level))
break;
...
} while(true);
walk_shadow_page_lockless_end(vcpu);
and for get_mmio_spte():
walk_shadow_page_lockless_begin(vcpu);
leaf = get_sptes_lockless(vcpu, addr, sptes, &root);
if (unlikely(leaf < 0)) {
*sptep = 0ull;
return reserved;
}
walk_shadow_page_lockless_end(vcpu);
And if we look at the TDP MMU implementations, they aren't sharing _that_ much
code, and the code that is shared isn't all that interesting, e.g. if we really
wanted to we could macro-magic away the boilerplate, but I think even I would
balk at the result :-)
int kvm_tdp_mmu_get_sptes_lockless(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 addr, u64 *sptes,
int *root_level)
{
struct tdp_iter iter;
struct kvm_mmu *mmu = vcpu->arch.mmu;
gfn_t gfn = addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
int leaf = -1;
*root_level = vcpu->arch.mmu->shadow_root_level;
tdp_mmu_for_each_pte(iter, mmu, gfn, gfn + 1) {
leaf = iter.level;
sptes[leaf] = iter.old_spte;
}
return leaf;
}
u64 *kvm_tdp_mmu_get_spte_lockless(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 addr, u64 *spte)
{
struct kvm_mmu *mmu = vcpu->arch.mmu;
gfn_t gfn = addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
struct tdp_iter iter;
u64 *sptep = NULL;
*spte = 0ull;
tdp_mmu_for_each_pte(iter, mmu, gfn, gfn + 1) {
/*
* Here be a comment about the unfortunate differences between
* the TDP MMU and the legacy MMU.
*/
sptep = (u64 * __force)iter.sptep;
*spte = iter.old_spte;
}
return sptep;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-14 23:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-11 23:56 [PATCH 0/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Fast page fault support for the TDP MMU David Matlack
2021-06-11 23:56 ` [PATCH 1/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Refactor is_tdp_mmu_root() David Matlack
2021-06-14 17:56 ` Ben Gardon
2021-06-14 19:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-06-14 21:23 ` David Matlack
2021-06-14 21:39 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-06-14 22:01 ` David Matlack
2021-06-11 23:56 ` [PATCH 2/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Rename cr2_or_gpa to gpa in fast_page_fault David Matlack
2021-06-14 17:56 ` Ben Gardon
2021-06-11 23:56 ` [PATCH 3/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Fix use of enums in trace_fast_page_fault David Matlack
2021-06-11 23:56 ` [PATCH 4/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Common API for lockless shadow page walks David Matlack
2021-06-14 17:56 ` Ben Gardon
2021-06-11 23:56 ` [PATCH 5/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Also record spteps in shadow_page_walk David Matlack
2021-06-14 17:56 ` Ben Gardon
2021-06-14 22:27 ` David Matlack
2021-06-14 22:59 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2021-06-14 23:39 ` David Matlack
2021-06-15 0:22 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-06-11 23:56 ` [PATCH 6/8] KVM: x86/mmu: fast_page_fault support for the TDP MMU David Matlack
2021-06-11 23:59 ` David Matlack
2021-06-14 17:56 ` Ben Gardon
2021-06-14 22:34 ` David Matlack
2021-06-11 23:57 ` [PATCH 7/8] KVM: selftests: Fix missing break in dirty_log_perf_test arg parsing David Matlack
2021-06-14 17:56 ` Ben Gardon
2021-06-11 23:57 ` [PATCH 8/8] KVM: selftests: Introduce access_tracking_perf_test David Matlack
2021-06-14 17:56 ` Ben Gardon
2021-06-14 21:47 ` David Matlack
2021-06-14 9:54 ` [PATCH 0/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Fast page fault support for the TDP MMU Paolo Bonzini
2021-06-14 21:08 ` David Matlack
2021-06-15 7:16 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-06-16 19:27 ` David Matlack
2021-06-16 19:31 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=YMffQriMoxWw2V1f@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=bgardon@google.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=junaids@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.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).