Message-ID: <Y77sQZI0IfFVx7Jo@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2023 17:05:05 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Cc:     Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Trigger Huang <Trigger.Huang@...il.com>,
        Gert Wollny <gert.wollny@...labora.com>,
        Antonio Caggiano <antonio.caggiano@...labora.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...labora.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] drm/ttm: Refcount allocated tail pages

On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, Christian König wrote:
> Am 18.08.22 um 01:13 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
> > On 8/18/22 01:57, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > > On 8/15/22 18:54, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > > > On 8/15/22 17:57, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > > > > On 8/15/22 16:53, Christian König wrote:
> > > > > > Am 15.08.22 um 15:45 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
> > > > > > > [SNIP]
> > > > > > > > Well that comment sounds like KVM is doing the right thing, so I'm
> > > > > > > > wondering what exactly is going on here.
> > > > > > > KVM actually doesn't hold the page reference, it takes the temporal
> > > > > > > reference during page fault and then drops the reference once page is
> > > > > > > mapped, IIUC. Is it still illegal for TTM? Or there is a possibility for
> > > > > > > a race condition here?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > Well the question is why does KVM grab the page reference in the first
> > > > > > place?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If that is to prevent the mapping from changing then yes that's illegal
> > > > > > and won't work. It can always happen that you grab the address, solve
> > > > > > the fault and then immediately fault again because the address you just
> > > > > > grabbed is invalidated.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If it's for some other reason than we should probably investigate if we
> > > > > > shouldn't stop doing this.

...

> > > > If we need to bump the refcount only for VM_MIXEDMAP and not for
> > > > VM_PFNMAP, then perhaps we could add a flag for that to the kvm_main
> > > > code that will denote to kvm_release_page_clean whether it needs to put
> > > > the page?
> > > The other variant that kind of works is to mark TTM pages reserved using
> > > SetPageReserved/ClearPageReserved, telling KVM not to mess with the page
> > > struct. But the potential consequences of doing this are unclear to me.
> > > 
> > > Christian, do you think we can do it?
> > Although, no. It also doesn't work with KVM without additional changes
> > to KVM.
> 
> Well my fundamental problem is that I can't fit together why KVM is grabing
> a page reference in the first place.

It's to workaround a deficiency in KVM.

> See the idea of the page reference is that you have one reference is that
> you count the reference so that the memory is not reused while you access
> it, e.g. for I/O or mapping it into different address spaces etc...
> 
> But none of those use cases seem to apply to KVM. If I'm not totally
> mistaken in KVM you want to make sure that the address space mapping, e.g.
> the translation between virtual and physical address, don't change while you
> handle it, but grabbing a page reference is the completely wrong approach
> for that.

TL;DR: 100% agree, and we're working on fixing this in KVM, but were still months
away from a full solution.

Yep.  KVM uses mmu_notifiers to react to mapping changes, with a few caveats that
we are (slowly) fixing, though those caveats are only tangentially related.

The deficiency in KVM is that KVM's internal APIs to translate a virtual address
to a physical address spit out only the resulting host PFN.  The details of _how_
that PFN was acquired are not captured.  Specifically, KVM loses track of whether
or not a PFN was acquired via gup() or follow_pte() (KVM is very permissive when
it comes to backing guest memory).

Because gup() gifts the caller a reference, that means KVM also loses track of
whether or not KVM holds a page refcount.  To avoid pinning guest memory, KVM does
quickly put the reference gifted by gup(), but because KVM doesn't _know_ if it
holds a reference, KVM uses a heuristic, which is essentially "is the PFN associated
with a 'normal' struct page?".

   /*
    * Returns a 'struct page' if the pfn is "valid" and backed by a refcounted
    * page, NULL otherwise.  Note, the list of refcounted PG_reserved page types
    * is likely incomplete, it has been compiled purely through people wanting to
    * back guest with a certain type of memory and encountering issues.
    */
   struct page *kvm_pfn_to_refcounted_page(kvm_pfn_t pfn)

That heuristic also triggers if follow_pte() resolves to a PFN that is associated
with a "struct page", and so to avoid putting a reference it doesn't own, KVM does
the silly thing of manually getting a reference immediately after follow_pte().

And that in turn gets tripped up non-refcounted tail pages because KVM sees a
normal, valid "struct page" and assumes it's refcounted.  To fudge around that
issue, KVM requires "struct page" memory to be refcounted.

The long-term solution is to refactor KVM to precisely track whether or not KVM
holds a reference.  Patches have been prosposed to do exactly that[1], but they
were put on hold due to the aforementioned caveats with mmu_notifiers.  The
caveats are that most flows where KVM plumbs a physical address into hardware
structures aren't wired up to KVM's mmu_notifier.

KVM could support non-refcounted struct page memory without first fixing the
mmu_notifier issues, but I was (and still am) concerned that that would create an
even larger hole in KVM until the mmu_notifier issues are sorted out[2].
 
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211129034317.2964790-1-stevensd@google.com
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Ydhq5aHW+JFo15UF@google.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists