linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 03/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Track count of pages in KVM MMU page caches globally

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 17:09:14 -0800
From:   Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
To:     David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Cc:     seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, bgardon@...gle.com,
        jmattson@...gle.com, mizhang@...gle.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 03/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Track count of pages in KVM MMU
 page caches globally

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 4:56 PM David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 04:28:10PM -0800, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:53 PM David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:41:12PM -0800, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > > > Create a global counter for total number of pages available
> > > > in MMU page caches across all VMs. Add mmu_shadow_page_cache
> > > > pages to this counter.
> > >
> > > I think I prefer counting the objects on-demand in mmu_shrink_count(),
> > > instead of keeping track of the count. Keeping track of the count adds
> > > complexity to the topup/alloc paths for the sole benefit of the
> > > shrinker. I'd rather contain that complexity to the shrinker code unless
> > > there is a compelling reason to optimize mmu_shrink_count().
> > >
> > > IIRC we discussed this at one point. Was there a reason to take this
> > > approach that I'm just forgetting?
> >
> > To count on demand, we first need to lock on kvm_lock and then for
> > each VMs iterate through each vCPU, take a lock, and sum the objects
> > count in caches. When the NUMA support will be introduced in this
> > series then it means we have to iterate even more caches. We
> > can't/shouldn't use mutex_trylock() as it will not give the correct
> > picture and when shrink_scan is called count can be totally different.
>
> Yeah good point. Hm, do we need to take the cache mutex to calculate the
> count though? mmu_shrink_count() is inherently racy (something could get
> freed or allocated in between count() and scan()). I don't think holding
> the mutex buys us anything over just reading the count without the
> mutex.
>

You are right, mutex and percpu_counter both are not not solving
accuracy problems with the shrinker. So, this can be removed.

> e.g.
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index df8dcb7e5de7..c80a5c52f0ea 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -6739,10 +6739,20 @@ static unsigned long mmu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
>  static unsigned long mmu_shrink_count(struct shrinker *shrink,
>                                       struct shrink_control *sc)
>  {
> -       s64 count = percpu_counter_sum(&kvm_total_unused_cached_pages);
> +       struct kvm *kvm, *next_kvm;
> +       unsigned long count = 0;
>
> -       WARN_ON(count < 0);
> -       return count <= 0 ? SHRINK_EMPTY : count;
> +       mutex_lock(&kvm_lock);
> +       list_for_each_entry_safe(kvm, next_kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> +               struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> +               unsigned long i;
> +
> +               kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm)
> +                       count += READ_ONCE(vcpu->arch.mmu_shadow_page_cache.nobjs);
> +       }
> +       mutex_unlock(&kvm_lock);
> +
> +       return count == 0 ? SHRINK_EMPTY : count;
>
>  }
>
> Then the only concern is an additional acquire of kvm_lock. But it
> should be fairly quick (quicker than mmu_shrink_scan()). If we can
> tolerate the kvm_lock overhead of mmu_shrink_scan(), then we should be
> able to tolerate some here.
>
> >
> > scan_count() API comment says to not do any deadlock check (I don't
> > know what does that mean) and percpu_counter is very fast when we are
> > adding/subtracting pages so the effect of using it to keep global
> > count is very minimal. Since, there is not much impact to using
> > percpu_count compared to previous one, we ended our discussion with
> > keeping this per cpu counter.
>
> Yeah it's just the code complexity of maintaing
> kvm_total_unused_cached_pages that I'm hoping to avoid. We have to
> create the counter, destroy it, and keep it up to date. Some
> kvm_mmu_memory_caches have to update the counter, and others don't. It's
> just adds a lot of bookkeeping code that I'm not convinced is worth the
> it.

Yeah, it will simplify code a lot. Also, we also don't need 100%
accuracy with Shrinker. I will remove this global counter in the next
version.