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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B27C433EF for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 15:54:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02A4A60F11 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 15:54:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232622AbhJFP4D (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:56:03 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:40572 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230014AbhJFP4C (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:56:02 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 196Fam55024338; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:54:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=YVOZsWQsqzQcF7M5quXzwIKSlGys+PDhZXZPie/0uHM=; b=IGrRXBHSQreW3nQ8uVlkOGm5sffxQhFIteS8S/1c+az/V+GUlqzan0hF3g5AmqfirHna RZfdSuRtsxcA4AYV2wcLn1E/SXpHvtaqWoz4TyXtejeEuBSdS/FiXeatAmIhiUSPLJ3K BzXc7mm0l+4Wn6DmULPdlqw2Xu5v+iUDzqCcst+slzhRbP2hak1a1U8uWF7HTAy13fhD fBc3N1NsMkp8jYEVcQZFUXT4EgMFelXKVMCkRVtzF0FBar6SIylKbMimnvDiTzB6hBfu EHlN9E/8WNadujoYsFLnsehLERasc/MeWA+5yaBl27HPIads3qKj9Ptb8n4S8Z6gyFwM dg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3bhcsckybp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 06 Oct 2021 11:54:09 -0400 Received: from m0098416.ppops.net (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 196FamT0024363; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:54:09 -0400 Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3bhcsckyb0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 06 Oct 2021 11:54:09 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 196FmjI8003301; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 15:54:07 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3bhepcr2dq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 06 Oct 2021 15:54:07 +0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 196Fs1pC40567268 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 6 Oct 2021 15:54:02 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF1B11C058; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 15:54:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E51811C04C; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 15:54:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-43c5434c-23b8-11b2-a85c-c4958fb47a68.ibm.com (unknown [9.171.18.96]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 15:54:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/14] KVM: s390: pv: avoid stalls when making pages secure To: Claudio Imbrenda , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: cohuck@redhat.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com References: <20210920132502.36111-1-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> <20210920132502.36111-5-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 17:54:00 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210920132502.36111-5-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: udScA1uxJcZ4wc2zvBSjHXaTC1tiTXdI X-Proofpoint-GUID: bb-8SV5XLr36GD39aSeHgyC3rrrQXilB X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.182.1,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.391,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-10-06_04,2021-10-06_01,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109230001 definitions=main-2110060097 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Am 20.09.21 um 15:24 schrieb Claudio Imbrenda: > Improve make_secure_pte to avoid stalls when the system is heavily > overcommitted. This was especially problematic in kvm_s390_pv_unpack, > because of the loop over all pages that needed unpacking. > > Due to the locks being held, it was not possible to simply replace > uv_call with uv_call_sched. A more complex approach was > needed, in which uv_call is replaced with __uv_call, which does not > loop. When the UVC needs to be executed again, -EAGAIN is returned, and > the caller (or its caller) will try again. > > When -EAGAIN is returned, the path is the same as when the page is in > writeback (and the writeback check is also performed, which is > harmless). > > Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda > Fixes: 214d9bbcd3a672 ("s390/mm: provide memory management functions for protected KVM guests") > --- > arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------ > arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c | 5 +++++ > 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c > index aeb0a15bcbb7..68a8fbafcb9c 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c > @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static int make_secure_pte(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long addr, > { > pte_t entry = READ_ONCE(*ptep); > struct page *page; > - int expected, rc = 0; > + int expected, cc = 0; > > if (!pte_present(entry)) > return -ENXIO; > @@ -196,12 +196,25 @@ static int make_secure_pte(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long addr, > if (!page_ref_freeze(page, expected)) > return -EBUSY; > set_bit(PG_arch_1, &page->flags); > - rc = uv_call(0, (u64)uvcb); > + /* > + * If the UVC does not succeed or fail immediately, we don't want to > + * loop for long, or we might get stall notifications. > + * On the other hand, this is a complex scenario and we are holding a lot of > + * locks, so we can't easily sleep and reschedule. We try only once, > + * and if the UVC returned busy or partial completion, we return > + * -EAGAIN and we let the callers deal with it. > + */ > + cc = __uv_call(0, (u64)uvcb); > page_ref_unfreeze(page, expected); > - /* Return -ENXIO if the page was not mapped, -EINVAL otherwise */ > - if (rc) > - rc = uvcb->rc == 0x10a ? -ENXIO : -EINVAL; > - return rc; > + /* > + * Return -ENXIO if the page was not mapped, -EINVAL for other errors. > + * If busy or partially completed, return -EAGAIN. > + */ > + if (cc == UVC_CC_OK) > + return 0; > + else if (cc == UVC_CC_BUSY || cc == UVC_CC_PARTIAL) > + return -EAGAIN; > + return uvcb->rc == 0x10a ? -ENXIO : -EINVAL; > } > > /* > @@ -254,6 +267,10 @@ int gmap_make_secure(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long gaddr, void *uvcb) > mmap_read_unlock(gmap->mm); > > if (rc == -EAGAIN) { > + /* > + * If we are here because the UVC returned busy or partial > + * completion, this is just a useless check, but it is safe. > + */ > wait_on_page_writeback(page); > } else if (rc == -EBUSY) { > /* > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c > index 72b25b7cc6ae..47833ade4da5 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c > @@ -516,6 +516,11 @@ static int handle_pv_uvc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > */ > if (rc == -EINVAL) > return 0; > + /* > + * If we got -EAGAIN here, we simply return it. It will eventually > + * get propagated all the way to userspace, which should then try > + * again. > + */ This cpoment is new over v4, right? Can this happen often? If not then this is ok otherwise we should consider your proposal of doing if (rc == -EINVAL || rc == -EAGAIN) to reduce overhead. Anyway,for both ways Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger > return rc; > } > >