Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:40:04 +0300
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] kvm: implement atomic memslot updates

On Thu, 2022-09-29 at 17:28 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 9/28/22 22:41, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On 9/28/22 17:58, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > I don't disagree that the memslots API is lacking, but IMO that is somewhat
> > > > orthogonal to fixing KVM x86's "code fetch to MMIO" mess.  Such a massive new API
> > > > should be viewed and prioritized as a new feature, not as a bug fix, e.g. I'd
> > > > like to have the luxury of being able to explore ideas beyond "let userspace
> > > > batch memslot updates", and I really don't want to feel pressured to get this
> > > > code reviewed and merge.
> > > 
> > > I absolutely agree that this is not a bugfix.  Most new features for KVM can
> > > be seen as bug fixes if you squint hard enough, but they're still features.
> > 
> > I guess I'm complaining that there isn't sufficient justification for this new
> > feature.  The cover letter provides a bug that would be fixed by having batched
> > updates, but as above, that's really due to deficiencies in a different KVM ABI.
> 
> I disagree.  Failure to fetch should be fixed but is otherwise a red 
> herring.  It's the whole memslot API (including dirty logging) that is a 
> mess.
> 
> If you think we should overhaul it even more than just providing atomic 
> batched updates, that's fine.  But still, the impossibility to perform 
> atomic updates in batches *is* a suboptimal part of the KVM API.
> 
> >    - Why can't this be solved in userspace?
> 
> I don't think *can't* is the right word.  If the metric of choice was 
> "what can be solved in userspace", we'd all be using microkernels.  The 
> question is why userspace would be a better place to solve it.
> 
> The only reason to do it in userspace would be if failure to fetch is 
> something that is interesting to userspace, other than between two 
> KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION.  Unless you provide an API to pass failures 
> to fetch down to userspace, the locking in userspace is going to be 
> inferior, because it would have to be unconditional.  This means worse 
> performance and more complication, not to mention having to do it N 
> times instead of 1 for N implementations.
> 
> Not forcing userspace to do "tricks" is in my opinion a strong part of 
> deciding whether an API belongs in KVM.
> 
> >    - What operations does userspace truly need?  E.g. if the only use case is to
> >      split/truncate/hole punch an existing memslot, can KVM instead provide a
> >      memslot flag and exit reason that allows kicking vCPUs to userspace if the
> >      memslot is accessed?  E.g. KVM_MEM_DISABLED that acts like an invalid memslot,
> >      but KVM exists with a dedicated exit reason instead of generating MMIO semantics.
> 
> The main cases are:
> 
> - for the boot case, splitting and merging existing memslots.  QEMU 
> likes to merge adjacent memory regions into a single memslot, so if 
> something goes from read-write to read-only it has to be split and vice 
> versa.  I guess a "don't merge this memory region" flag would be the 
> less hideous way to solve it in userspace.
> 
> - however, there is also the case of resizing an existing memslot which 
> is what David would like to have for virtio-mem.  This is not really 
> fixable because part of the appeal of virtio-mem is to have a single 
> huge memslot instead of many smaller ones, in order to reduce the 
> granularity of add/remove (David, correct me if I'm wrong).
> 
> (The latter _would_ be needed by other VMMs).
> 
> > If updates only need to be "atomic" for an address space, does the API allowing
> > mixing non-SMM and SMM memslots?
> 
> I agree that the address space should be moved out of the single entries 
> and into the header if we follow through with this approach.
> 
> > The update needs to be "atomic", i.e. vCPUs
> > must never see an invalid/deleted memslot, but if the memslot is writable,
> > how does KVM prevent some writes from hitting the old HVA and some from hitting
> > the new HVA without a quiescent period?
> 
> (Heh, and I forgot likewise that non-x86 does not retry on 
> KVM_MEMSLOT_INVALID.  Yes, that would be treated as a bug on other 
> architectures).
> 
> > > Wholesale replacement was my first idea when I looked at the issue, I think
> > > at the end of 2020.  I never got to a full implementation, but my impression
> > > was that allocating/deallocating dirty bitmaps, rmaps etc. would make it any
> > > easier than arbitrary batch updates.
> > 
> > It's not obvious to me that the memslot metadata is going to be easy to handle
> > regardless of what we do.  E.g. I'm pretty sure that batching updates will "corrupt"
> > the dirty bitmap if a hole is punched in a memslot that's being dirty logged.
> 
> Indeed; I would have thought that it is clear with the batch updates API 
> (which requires the update to be split into delete and insert), but 
> apparently it's not and it's by no means optimal.


I 100% agree with everything Paolo said.


Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky
> 
> Paolo
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists