[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZAp0W9eH6XbWhiap@google.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 16:05:47 -0800
From: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
To: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Cc: Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@...il.com>, seanjc@...gle.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, bgardon@...gle.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
mizhang@...gle.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 05/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Add split_shadow_page_cache pages
to global count of MMU cache pages
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 11:59:00AM -0800, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:58 AM Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 14:41:14 -0800
> > Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Add pages in split_shadow_page_cache to the global counter
> > > kvm_total_unused_cached_pages. These pages will be freed by MMU shrinker
> > > in future commit.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 7 +++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > index df8dcb7e5de7..0ebb8a2eaf47 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > @@ -6149,7 +6149,9 @@ static void mmu_free_vm_memory_caches(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > {
> > > kvm_mmu_free_memory_cache(&kvm->arch.split_desc_cache);
> > > kvm_mmu_free_memory_cache(&kvm->arch.split_page_header_cache);
> > > - kvm_mmu_free_memory_cache(&kvm->arch.split_shadow_page_cache);
> > > + mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
> > > + mmu_free_sp_memory_cache(&kvm->arch.split_shadow_page_cache);
> > > + mutex_unlock(&kvm->slots_lock);
> >
> > Taking the lock of the calling path in the layer of cache topping/free layer
> > seems off.
> >
> > My vote goes to have a lock for each cache and take the lock of the cache when
> > topping/free the cache. It is more self-contained and architecturally nice.
> >
>
> Yeah, this can be one way. However, in future patches when I am adding
> per NUMA node cache, it will add up a lot of locks for the same code
> path before a topup. In split huge page case we know what NUMA node we
> need to allocate from so we can fine tune which lock to take but in
> fault path code we don't know what NUMA node the page will be coming
> from so we need to topup all of the NUMA caches. Having a single lock
> simplifies code a little bit.
>
> I agree with you on being more self-contained. I will wait for others
> to also chime in on this and go from there.
As a general rule, please only added locking when it's needed. Adding
the lock in this commit is just confusing.
But that aside, I don't think acquiring the slots lock is even needed in
this commit. mmu_free_vm_memory_caches() is never called while the the
VM is on vm_list. i.e. This can never race with the shrinker.
If you want to be paranoid you can add a WARN to ensure that stays true
going forward:
/* ... comment ... */
WARN_ON_ONCE(!list_empty(&kvm->vm_list));
Powered by blists - more mailing lists