From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD4CC43460 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB3A610A5 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:28:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CDB3A610A5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639B04B644; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 05:28:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@google.com Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sevv8-Y-waBy; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 05:28:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBDA4B621; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 05:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00FDA4B491 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:41:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N8ltjuozVoXy for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:41:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-pf1-f182.google.com (mail-pf1-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B37E84B47F for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:41:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf1-f182.google.com with SMTP id m11so14939192pfc.11 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:41:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=iR0wTKyQqrCYG4Q831SOK/hJxQXD0DTeg7JGIplTxaE=; b=pDOL/AXp1YZDHSJM55VWmMHEXRZyEKHoWUfLiwu43sQHWLgrvb2clWRDjjyCUh0dsJ bNDMyWcbeueU/GKG4kOjx3b7egix4+sMYZfIS9I0MmjVVx1rcp5WszmjK7+6YeQKCfOM 2FXvSyhaSnZkWSZYBa+Zf13p0L3I/egR0XklyggIPr+PefBGDyB7ynzXrNWFqXB2lvPg VgGQ2uiEQdyQFwKIAdbJTxKQSwskTj3uIlVQzOZzPoiS3tMYr2MmjzSdDZfHyKUb7IXo nUd7C6HDGQOQomM2rO6UOTojM3AlSltwg6FTYiW5B9h7N+cvmdJr9MHgjJMW5v34nPiS VoEw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=iR0wTKyQqrCYG4Q831SOK/hJxQXD0DTeg7JGIplTxaE=; b=nf9fmYtW3G9xecvC+Iyz5vO2UY+yfEkhrmDdX+zZCALsnsZbMZLPUoGHpF3QPB78u5 0weXfHZIcJdE/KahNgrJKsG3ME3kWnpPr5v2tyQ33JWcMXNphdw2onWSeeuDeCCt2vNr S7V3MA2dL++HgES7y0btuOy7qI5OX1mKNyak+3pr3UKx36HsDumnGBGhquWokNNsLglI b1MIc6oR64feoT+EVhCj9qt7DNbWGaLnbmuRZnVC8d0V1bST9AeZ1lXFJbUxgqW2fpNX COgxlqbYvVhhTPXkdi8m+UQ117hm2adReW6E7Z0AZBQG810glKRl94o4jiGs6L7FAYEn 5JgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532vqRJXvhUDWbjg0qNA4eZH1uzYx6PBTQ4ByDocCD1K/s1HeUas F0eO3WNJ/eOQ6n3S5Pu63OzY/w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZrE+nqFXUOYwl468wAhlBPq8DZI8v9hc2mHxYO0VlQq5depEehdtkJEVYztZyBSLt0lNXHA== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:86c1:0:b029:203:900:2813 with SMTP id h1-20020aa786c10000b029020309002813mr3647646pfo.35.1617208885458; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (240.111.247.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.247.111.240]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a13sm2933328pgm.43.2021.03.31.09.41.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:41:21 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson To: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation unless necessary Message-ID: References: <20210326021957.1424875-1-seanjc@google.com> <20210326021957.1424875-17-seanjc@google.com> <6e7dc7d0-f5dc-85d9-1c50-d23b761b5ff3@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6e7dc7d0-f5dc-85d9-1c50-d23b761b5ff3@redhat.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 05:28:17 -0400 Cc: Wanpeng Li , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier , Joerg Roedel , Huacai Chen , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , Aleksandar Markovic , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Ben Gardon , Vitaly Kuznetsov , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Jim Mattson X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 26/03/21 03:19, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > + /* > > + * Reset the lock used to prevent memslot updates between MMU notifier > > + * range_start and range_end. At this point no more MMU notifiers will > > + * run, but the lock could still be held if KVM's notifier was removed > > + * between range_start and range_end. No threads can be waiting on the > > + * lock as the last reference on KVM has been dropped. If the lock is > > + * still held, freeing memslots will deadlock. > > + */ > > + init_rwsem(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock); > > I was going to say that this is nasty, Heh, I still think it's nasty. > then I noticed that > mmu_notifier_unregister uses SRCU to ensure completion of concurrent calls > to the MMU notifier. So I guess it's fine, but it's better to point it out: > > /* > * At this point no more MMU notifiers will run and pending > * calls to range_start have completed, but the lock would > * still be held and never released if the MMU notifier was > * removed between range_start and range_end. Since the last > * reference to the struct kvm has been dropped, no threads can > * be waiting on the lock, but we might still end up taking it > * when freeing memslots in kvm_arch_destroy_vm. Reset the lock > * to avoid deadlocks. > */ > > That said, the easiest way to avoid this would be to always update > mmu_notifier_count. Updating mmu_notifier_count requires taking mmu_lock, which would defeat the purpose of these shenanigans. I think it could be made atomic, since mmu_lock would be taken before the elevated count _must_ be visible, but that would break the mmu_notifier_range_{start,end} optimization that was recently added. Or did I completely misunderstand what you're suggesting? > I don't mind the rwsem, but at least I suggest that you > split the patch in two---the first one keeping the mmu_notifier_count update > unconditional, and the second one introducing the rwsem and the on_lock > function kvm_inc_notifier_count. Please document the new lock in > Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst too. Note, will update docs. > Also, related to the first part of the series, perhaps you could structure > the series in a slightly different way: > > 1) introduce the HVA walking API in common code, complete with on_lock and > patch 15, so that you can use on_lock to increase mmu_notifier_seq > > 2) then migrate all architectures including x86 to the new API > > IOW, first half of patch 10 and all of patch 15; then the second half of > patch 10; then patches 11-14. > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER) > > + down_write(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock); > > +#endif > > rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots[as_id], slots); > > +#if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER) > > + up_write(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock); > > +#endif > > Please do this unconditionally, the cost is minimal if the rwsem is not > contended (as is the case if the architecture doesn't use MMU notifiers at > all). It's not the cost, it's that mmu_notifier_slots_lock doesn't exist. That's an easily solved problem, but then the lock wouldn't be initialized since kvm_init_mmu_notifier() is a nop. That's again easy to solve, but IMO would look rather weird. I guess the counter argument is that __kvm_memslots() wouldn't need #ifdeffery. These are the to ideas I've come up with: Option 1: static int kvm_init_mmu_notifier(struct kvm *kvm) { init_rwsem(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock); #if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER) kvm->mmu_notifier.ops = &kvm_mmu_notifier_ops; return mmu_notifier_register(&kvm->mmu_notifier, current->mm); #else return 0; #endif } Option 2: kvm_mmu_notifier_lock(kvm); rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots[as_id], slots); kvm_mmu_notifier_unlock(kvm); _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm