From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>, Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: x86/mmu: Don't allow TDP MMU to yield when recovering NX pages
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 19:18:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <addaedc2-2050-06a1-e241-047c6e4c94c3@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YF0N5/qsmsNHQeVy@google.com>
On 25/03/21 23:25, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021, Ben Gardon wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 1:01 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
>>> +static inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start,
>>> + gfn_t end)
>>> +{
>>> + return __kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_gfn_range(kvm, start, end, true);
>>> +}
>>> +static inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_sp(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>>
>> I'm a little leary of adding an interface which takes a non-root
>> struct kvm_mmu_page as an argument to the TDP MMU.
>> In the TDP MMU, the struct kvm_mmu_pages are protected rather subtly.
>> I agree this is safe because we hold the MMU lock in write mode here,
>> but if we ever wanted to convert to holding it in read mode things
>> could get complicated fast.
>> Maybe this is more of a concern if the function started to be used
>> elsewhere since NX recovery is already so dependent on the write lock.
>
> Agreed. Even writing the comment below felt a bit awkward when thinking about
> additional users holding mmu_lock for read. Actually, I should remove that
> specific blurb since zapping currently requires holding mmu_lock for write.
>
>> Ideally though, NX reclaim could use MMU read lock +
>> tdp_mmu_pages_lock to protect the list and do reclaim in parallel with
>> everything else.
>
> Yar, processing all legacy MMU pages, and then all TDP MMU pages to avoid some
> of these dependencies crossed my mind. But, it's hard to justify effectively
> walking the list twice. And maintaining two lists might lead to balancing
> issues, e.g. the legacy MMU and thus nested VMs get zapped more often than the
> TDP MMU, or vice versa.
>
>> The nice thing about drawing the TDP MMU interface in terms of GFNs
>> and address space IDs instead of SPs is that it doesn't put
>> constraints on the implementation of the TDP MMU because those GFNs
>> are always going to be valid / don't require any shared memory.
>> This is kind of innocuous because it's immediately converted into that
>> gfn interface, so I don't know how much it really matters.
>>
>> In any case this change looks correct and I don't want to hold up
>> progress with bikeshedding.
>> WDYT?
>
> I think we're kind of hosed either way. Either we add a helper in the TDP MMU
> that takes a SP, or we bleed a lot of information about the details of TDP MMU
> into the common MMU. E.g. the function could be open-coded verbatim, but the
> whole comment below, and the motivation for not feeding in flush is very
> dependent on the internal details of TDP MMU.
>
> I don't have a super strong preference. One thought would be to assert that
> mmu_lock is held for write, and then it largely come future person's problem :-)
Queued all three, with lockdep_assert_held_write here.
Paolo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-30 17:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-25 20:01 [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: x86/mmu: Fix TLB flushing bugs in TDP MMU Sean Christopherson
2021-03-25 20:01 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: x86/mmu: Ensure TLBs are flushed when yielding during GFN range zap Sean Christopherson
2021-03-25 20:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: x86/mmu: Ensure TLBs are flushed for TDP MMU during NX zapping Sean Christopherson
2021-03-25 21:47 ` Ben Gardon
2021-03-25 20:01 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: x86/mmu: Don't allow TDP MMU to yield when recovering NX pages Sean Christopherson
2021-03-25 21:46 ` Ben Gardon
2021-03-25 22:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-03-25 22:45 ` Ben Gardon
2021-03-26 17:11 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-03-26 17:12 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-03-30 17:18 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
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=addaedc2-2050-06a1-e241-047c6e4c94c3@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=bgardon@google.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.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).