[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <02c910bb-3ea0-fa84-7a1c-92fb9e8b03de@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 23:34:10 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] KVM: API to block and resume all running vcpus in a
vm
On 10/25/22 17:55, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> That said, I believe the limited memslot API makes it more than just a QEMU
>> problem. Because KVM_GET_DIRTY_LOG cannot be combined atomically with
>> KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION(MR_DELETE), any VMM that uses dirty-log regions
>> while the VM is running is liable to losing the dirty status of some pages.
>
> ... and doesn't already do the sane thing and pause vCPUs _and anything else that
> can touch guest memory_ before modifying memslots. I honestly think QEMU is the > only VMM that would ever use this API. Providing a way to force vCPUs
out of KVM_RUN> is at best half of the solution.
I agree this is not a full solution (and I do want to remove
KVM_RESUME_ALL_KICKED_VCPUS).
> - a refcounting scheme to track the number of "holds" put on the system
> - serialization to ensure KVM_RESUME_ALL_KICKED_VCPUS completes before a new
> KVM_KICK_ALL_RUNNING_VCPUS is initiated
Both of these can be just a mutex, the others are potentially more
interesting but I'm not sure I understand them:
> - to prevent _all_ ioctls() because it's not just KVM_RUN that consumes memslots
This is perhaps an occasion to solve another disagreement: I still think
that accessing memory outside KVM_RUN (for example KVM_SET_NESTED_STATE
loading the APICv pages from VMCS12) is a bug, on the other hand we
disagreed on that and you wanted to kill KVM_REQ_GET_NESTED_STATE_PAGES.
> - to stop anything else in the system that consumes KVM memslots, e.g. KVM GT
Is this true if you only look at the KVM_GET_DIRTY_LOG case and consider
it a guest bug to access the memory (i.e. ignore the strange read-only
changes which only happen at boot, and which I agree are QEMU-specific)?
> - to signal vCPU tasks so that the system doesn't livelock if a vCPU is stuck
> outside of KVM, e.g. in get_user_pages_unlocked() (Peter Xu's series)
This is the more important one but why would it livelock?
> And because of the nature of KVM, to support this API on all architectures, KVM
> needs to make change on all architectures, whereas userspace should be able to
> implement a generic solution.
Yes, I agree that this is essentially just a more efficient kill().
Emanuele, perhaps you can put together a patch to x86/vmexit.c in
kvm-unit-tests, where CPU0 keeps changing memslots and the other CPUs
are in a for(;;) busy wait, to measure the various ways to do it?
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists