linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/24] kvm: mmu: Wrap mmu_lock cond

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CANgfPd_WvXP=mOnxFR8BY=WnbR5Gn8RpK7aR_mOrdDiCh4VEeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:47:19 -0800
From:   Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
        Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@...il.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/24] kvm: mmu: Wrap mmu_lock cond_resched and needbreak

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:38 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 21/01/21 01:19, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > What if we simply make the common mmu_lock a union? The rwlock_t is
> > probably a bit bigger, but that's a few bytes for an entire VM. And
> > maybe this would entice/inspire other architectures to move to a similar
> > MMU model.
>
> Looking more at this, there is a problem in that MMU notifier functions
> take the MMU lock.
>
> Yes, qrwlock the size is a bit larger than qspinlock.  However, the fast
> path of qrwlocks is small, and if the slow paths are tiny compared to
> the mmu_lock critical sections that are so big as to require
> cond_resched.  So I would consider just changing all architectures to an
> rwlock.

I like the idea of putting the MMU lock union directly in struct KVM
and will make that change in the next version of this series. In my
testing, I found that wholesale replacing the spin lock with an rwlock
had a noticeable negative performance impact on the legacy / shadow
MMU. Enough that it motivated me to implement this more complex union
scheme. While the difference was pronounced in the dirty log perf test
microbenchmark, it's an open question as to whether it would matter in
practice.

>
> Paolo
>