[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <40a22c39-9da4-6c37-8ad0-b33970e35a2b@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 18:55:13 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Zap only obsolete roots if a root
shadow page is zapped
On 2/25/22 19:22, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> @@ -5656,7 +5707,7 @@ static void kvm_mmu_zap_all_fast(struct kvm *kvm)
> * Note: we need to do this under the protection of mmu_lock,
> * otherwise, vcpu would purge shadow page but miss tlb flush.
> */
> - kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD);
> + kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_MMU_FREE_OBSOLETE_ROOTS);
>
I was going to squash in this:
* invalidating TDP MMU roots must be done while holding mmu_lock for
- * write and in the same critical section as making the reload request,
+ * write and in the same critical section as making the free request,
* e.g. before kvm_zap_obsolete_pages() could drop mmu_lock and yield.
But then I realized that this needs better comments and that my knowledge of
this has serious holes. Regarding this comment, this is my proposal:
/*
* Invalidated TDP MMU roots are zapped within MMU read_lock to be
* able to walk the list of roots, but with the expectation of no
* concurrent change to the pages themselves. There cannot be
* any yield between kvm_tdp_mmu_invalidate_all_roots and the free
* request, otherwise somebody could grab a reference to the root
* and break that assumption.
*/
if (is_tdp_mmu_enabled(kvm))
kvm_tdp_mmu_invalidate_all_roots(kvm);
However, for the second comment (the one in the context above), there's much
more. From easier to harder:
1) I'm basically clueless about the TLB flush "note" above.
2) It's not clear to me what needs to use for_each_tdp_mmu_root; for
example, why would anything but the MMU notifiers use for_each_tdp_mmu_root?
It is used in kvm_tdp_mmu_write_protect_gfn, kvm_tdp_mmu_try_split_huge_pages
and kvm_tdp_mmu_clear_dirty_pt_masked.
3) Does it make sense that yielding users of for_each_tdp_mmu_root must
either look at valid roots only, or take MMU lock for write? If so, can
this be enforced in tdp_mmu_next_root?
4) If the previous point is correct, _who_ could grab a reference and
not release it before kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_invalidated_roots runs? That is,
is "somebody could grab a reference" an accurate explanation in the first
comment above?
Thanks,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists