linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] KVM: X86: Add paravirt remote TLB flush

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]

Message-ID: <20171113104634.62cmjalnj73scfnl@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:46:34 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Kr??m???? <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] KVM: X86: Add paravirt remote TLB flush

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:26:57PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2017-11-13 16:04 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:

> > So if at this point a vCPU gets preempted we'll still spin-wait for it,
> > which is sub-optimal.
> >
> > I think we can come up with something to get around that 'problem' if
> > indeed it is a problem. But we can easily do that as follow up patches.
> > Just let me know if you think its worth spending more time on.
> 
> You can post your idea, it is always smart. :) Then we can evaluate
> the complexity and gains.

I'm not sure I have a fully baked idea just yet, but the general idea
would be something like:

 - switch (back) to a dedicated TLB invalidate IPI

 - introduce KVM_VCPU_IPI_PENDING

 - change flush_tlb_others() into something like:

   for_each_cpu(cpu, flushmask) {
	 src = &per_cpu(steal_time, cpu);
	 state = READ_ONCE(src->preempted);
	 do {
		 if (state & KVM_VCPU_PREEMPTED) {
			 if (try_cmpxchg(&src->preempted, &state,
						 state | KVM_VCPU_SHOULD_FLUSH)) {
				 __cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, flushmask);
				 break;
			 }
		 }
	 } while (!try_cmpxchg(&src->preempted, &state,
				 state | KVM_VCPU_IPI_PENDING));
   }

   apic->send_IPI_mask(flushmask, CALL_TLB_VECTOR);

   for_each_cpu(cpu, flushmask) {
	 src = &per_cpu(steal_time, cpu);
	 smp_cond_load_acquire(&src->preempted, !(VAL & KVM_VCPU_IPI_PENDING);
   }


 - have the TLB invalidate handler do something like:

   state = READ_ONCE(src->preempted);
   if (!(state & KVM_VCPU_IPI_PENDING))
	   return;

   local_flush_tlb();

   do {
   } while (!try_cmpxchg(&src->preempted, &state,
			 state & ~KVM_VCPU_IPI_PENDING));

 - then at VMEXIT time do something like:

   state = READ_ONCE(src->preempted);
   do {
	if (!(state & KVM_VCPU_IPI_PENDING))
		break;
   } while (!try_cmpxchg(&src->preempted, state,
			 (state & ~KVM_VCPU_IPI_PENDING) |
			 KVM_VCPU_SHOULD_FLUSH));

   and clear any possible pending TLB_VECTOR in the guest state to avoid
   raising that IPI spuriously on enter again.


This way the preemption will clear the IPI_PENDING and the
flush_others() wait loop will terminate.