[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <baa5b87f4fe72163c3e16f7411a0ef46@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:55:25 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
Cc: kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
will@...nel.org, alexandru.elisei@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: arm64: Failback on unsupported huge page sizes
On 2020-10-25 23:04, Gavin Shan wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 10/25/20 9:48 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 01:27:39 +0100,
>> Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The huge page could be mapped through multiple contiguous PMDs or
>>> PTEs.
>>> The corresponding huge page sizes aren't supported by the page table
>>> walker currently.
>>>
>>> This fails the unsupported huge page sizes to the near one.
>>> Otherwise,
>>> the guest can't boot successfully: CONT_PMD_SHIFT and CONT_PTE_SHIFT
>>> fail back to PMD_SHIFT and PAGE_SHIFT separately.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 8 ++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
>>> index 0f51585adc04..81cbdc368246 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
>>> @@ -793,12 +793,20 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu
>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>> vma_shift = PMD_SHIFT;
>>> #endif
>>> + if (vma_shift == CONT_PMD_SHIFT)
>>> + vma_shift = PMD_SHIFT;
>>> +
>>> if (vma_shift == PMD_SHIFT &&
>>> !fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(memslot, hva, PMD_SIZE)) {
>>> force_pte = true;
>>> vma_shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> }
>>> + if (vma_shift == CONT_PTE_SHIFT) {
>>> + force_pte = true;
>>> + vma_shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> vma_pagesize = 1UL << vma_shift;
>>> if (vma_pagesize == PMD_SIZE || vma_pagesize == PUD_SIZE)
>>> fault_ipa &= ~(vma_pagesize - 1);
>>
>> Yup, nice catch. However, I think we should take this opportunity to
>> rationalise the logic here, and catch future discrepancies (should
>> someone add contiguous PUD or something similarly silly). How about
>> something like this (untested):
>>
>
> Yeah, I started the work to support contiguous PMDs/PTEs, but I'm not
> sure when I can post the patches for review as my time becomes a bit
> fragmented recently. At least, I need focus on "async page fault" in
> the coming weeks :)
>
> Thanks for the suggested code and it worked for me. I'll post v2 to
> integrate them. However, I would like to drop PATCH[1] and PATCH[2]
> as I really don't have strong reasons to have them.
Yes, please drop these patches, and focus on the actual bug fix.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists