[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221202061347.1070246-6-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 14:13:43 +0800
From: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
To: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
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>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
"Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
luto@...nel.org, jun.nakajima@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, david@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
ddutile@...hat.com, dhildenb@...hat.com,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>, tabba@...gle.com,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, mhocko@...e.com,
wei.w.wang@...el.com
Subject: [PATCH v10 5/9] KVM: Use gfn instead of hva for mmu_notifier_retry
Currently in mmu_notifier invalidate path, hva range is recorded and
then checked against by mmu_notifier_retry_hva() in the page fault
handling path. However, for the to be introduced private memory, a page
fault may not have a hva associated, checking gfn(gpa) makes more sense.
For existing hva based shared memory, gfn is expected to also work. The
only downside is when aliasing multiple gfns to a single hva, the
current algorithm of checking multiple ranges could result in a much
larger range being rejected. Such aliasing should be uncommon, so the
impact is expected small.
Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 8 +++++---
include/linux/kvm_host.h | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++------------
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index 4736d7849c60..e2c70b5afa3e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -4259,7 +4259,7 @@ static bool is_page_fault_stale(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
return true;
return fault->slot &&
- mmu_invalidate_retry_hva(vcpu->kvm, mmu_seq, fault->hva);
+ mmu_invalidate_retry_gfn(vcpu->kvm, mmu_seq, fault->gfn);
}
static int direct_page_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
@@ -6098,7 +6098,9 @@ void kvm_zap_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn_start, gfn_t gfn_end)
write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
- kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(kvm, gfn_start, gfn_end);
+ kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(kvm);
+
+ kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(kvm, gfn_start, gfn_end);
flush = kvm_rmap_zap_gfn_range(kvm, gfn_start, gfn_end);
@@ -6112,7 +6114,7 @@ void kvm_zap_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn_start, gfn_t gfn_end)
kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_address(kvm, gfn_start,
gfn_end - gfn_start);
- kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(kvm, gfn_start, gfn_end);
+ kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(kvm);
write_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
}
diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
index 02347e386ea2..3d69484d2704 100644
--- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
+++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
@@ -787,8 +787,8 @@ struct kvm {
struct mmu_notifier mmu_notifier;
unsigned long mmu_invalidate_seq;
long mmu_invalidate_in_progress;
- unsigned long mmu_invalidate_range_start;
- unsigned long mmu_invalidate_range_end;
+ gfn_t mmu_invalidate_range_start;
+ gfn_t mmu_invalidate_range_end;
#endif
struct list_head devices;
u64 manual_dirty_log_protect;
@@ -1389,10 +1389,9 @@ void kvm_mmu_free_memory_cache(struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *mc);
void *kvm_mmu_memory_cache_alloc(struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *mc);
#endif
-void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start,
- unsigned long end);
-void kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start,
- unsigned long end);
+void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm);
+void kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start, gfn_t end);
+void kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(struct kvm *kvm);
long kvm_arch_dev_ioctl(struct file *filp,
unsigned int ioctl, unsigned long arg);
@@ -1963,9 +1962,9 @@ static inline int mmu_invalidate_retry(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long mmu_seq)
return 0;
}
-static inline int mmu_invalidate_retry_hva(struct kvm *kvm,
+static inline int mmu_invalidate_retry_gfn(struct kvm *kvm,
unsigned long mmu_seq,
- unsigned long hva)
+ gfn_t gfn)
{
lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->mmu_lock);
/*
@@ -1974,10 +1973,20 @@ static inline int mmu_invalidate_retry_hva(struct kvm *kvm,
* that might be being invalidated. Note that it may include some false
* positives, due to shortcuts when handing concurrent invalidations.
*/
- if (unlikely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress) &&
- hva >= kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start &&
- hva < kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end)
- return 1;
+ if (unlikely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress)) {
+ /*
+ * Dropping mmu_lock after bumping mmu_invalidate_in_progress
+ * but before updating the range is a KVM bug.
+ */
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start == INVALID_GPA ||
+ kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end == INVALID_GPA))
+ return 1;
+
+ if (gfn >= kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start &&
+ gfn < kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end)
+ return 1;
+ }
+
if (kvm->mmu_invalidate_seq != mmu_seq)
return 1;
return 0;
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index b882eb2c76a2..ad55dfbc75d7 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -540,9 +540,7 @@ static void kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
typedef bool (*hva_handler_t)(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
-typedef void (*on_lock_fn_t)(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start,
- unsigned long end);
-
+typedef void (*on_lock_fn_t)(struct kvm *kvm);
typedef void (*on_unlock_fn_t)(struct kvm *kvm);
struct kvm_hva_range {
@@ -628,7 +626,8 @@ static __always_inline int __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
locked = true;
KVM_MMU_LOCK(kvm);
if (!IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->on_lock))
- range->on_lock(kvm, range->start, range->end);
+ range->on_lock(kvm);
+
if (IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->handler))
break;
}
@@ -715,8 +714,7 @@ static void kvm_mmu_notifier_change_pte(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
kvm_handle_hva_range(mn, address, address + 1, pte, kvm_set_spte_gfn);
}
-void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start,
- unsigned long end)
+void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm)
{
/*
* The count increase must become visible at unlock time as no
@@ -724,6 +722,17 @@ void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start,
* count is also read inside the mmu_lock critical section.
*/
kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress++;
+
+ if (likely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress == 1)) {
+ kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start = INVALID_GPA;
+ kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end = INVALID_GPA;
+ }
+}
+
+void kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start, gfn_t end)
+{
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress);
+
if (likely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress == 1)) {
kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start = start;
kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end = end;
@@ -744,6 +753,12 @@ void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start,
}
}
+static bool kvm_mmu_unmap_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
+{
+ kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(kvm, range->start, range->end);
+ return kvm_unmap_gfn_range(kvm, range);
+}
+
static int kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
const struct mmu_notifier_range *range)
{
@@ -752,7 +767,7 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
.start = range->start,
.end = range->end,
.pte = __pte(0),
- .handler = kvm_unmap_gfn_range,
+ .handler = kvm_mmu_unmap_gfn_range,
.on_lock = kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin,
.on_unlock = kvm_arch_guest_memory_reclaimed,
.flush_on_ret = true,
@@ -791,8 +806,7 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
return 0;
}
-void kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start,
- unsigned long end)
+void kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(struct kvm *kvm)
{
/*
* This sequence increase will notify the kvm page fault that
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists