linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] KVM: Unmap pages only when it's indeed protected for NUMA migration

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 15:40:44 +0800
From:   bibo mao <maobibo@...ngson.cn>
To:     Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
        mike.kravetz@...cle.com, apopple@...dia.com, jgg@...dia.com,
        rppt@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kevin.tian@...el.com,
        david@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] KVM: Unmap pages only when it's indeed
 protected for NUMA migration



在 2023/8/11 11:45, Yan Zhao 写道:
>>> +static void kvm_mmu_notifier_numa_protect(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
>>> +					  struct mm_struct *mm,
>>> +					  unsigned long start,
>>> +					  unsigned long end)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct kvm *kvm = mmu_notifier_to_kvm(mn);
>>> +
>>> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!READ_ONCE(kvm->mn_active_invalidate_count));
>>> +	if (!READ_ONCE(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress))
>>> +		return;
>>> +
>>> +	kvm_handle_hva_range(mn, start, end, __pte(0), kvm_unmap_gfn_range);
>>> +}
>> numa balance will scan wide memory range, and there will be one time
> Though scanning memory range is wide, .invalidate_range_start() is sent
> for each 2M range.
yes, range is huge page size when changing numa protection during numa scanning.

> 
>> ipi notification with kvm_flush_remote_tlbs. With page level notification,
>> it may bring out lots of flush remote tlb ipi notification.
> 
> Hmm, for VMs with assigned devices, apparently, the flush remote tlb IPIs
> will be reduced to 0 with this series.
> 
> For VMs without assigned devices or mdev devices, I was previously also
> worried about that there might be more IPIs.
> But with current test data, there's no more remote tlb IPIs on average.
> 
> The reason is below:
> 
> Before this series, kvm_unmap_gfn_range() is called for once for a 2M
> range.
> After this series, kvm_unmap_gfn_range() is called for once if the 2M is
> mapped to a huge page in primary MMU, and called for at most 512 times
> if mapped to 4K pages in primary MMU.
> 
> 
> Though kvm_unmap_gfn_range() is only called once before this series,
> as the range is blockable, when there're contentions, remote tlb IPIs
> can be sent page by page in 4K granularity (in tdp_mmu_iter_cond_resched())
I do not know much about x86, does this happen always or only need reschedule
from code?  so that there will be many times of tlb IPIs in only once function
call about kvm_unmap_gfn_range.

> if the pages are mapped in 4K in secondary MMU.
> 
> With this series, on the other hand, .numa_protect() sets range to be
> unblockable. So there could be less remote tlb IPIs when a 2M range is
> mapped into small PTEs in secondary MMU.
> Besides, .numa_protect() is not sent for all pages in a given 2M range.
No, .numa_protect() is not sent for all pages. It depends on the workload,
whether the page is accessed for different cpu threads cross-nodes.

> 
> Below is my testing data on a VM without assigned devices:
> The data is an average of 10 times guest boot-up.
>                    
>     data           | numa balancing caused  | numa balancing caused    
>   on average       | #kvm_unmap_gfn_range() | #kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() 
> -------------------|------------------------|--------------------------
> before this series |         35             |     8625                 
> after  this series |      10037             |     4610   
just be cautious, before the series there are  8625/35 = 246 IPI tlb flush ops
during one time kvm_unmap_gfn_range, is that x86 specific or generic? 

By the way are primary mmu and secondary mmu both 4K small page size "on average"?

Regards
Bibo Mao
              
> 
> For a single guest bootup,
>                    | numa balancing caused  | numa balancing caused    
>     best  data     | #kvm_unmap_gfn_range() | #kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() 
> -------------------|------------------------|--------------------------
> before this series |         28             |       13                  
> after  this series |        406             |      195                  
> 
>                    | numa balancing caused  | numa balancing caused    
>    worst  data     | #kvm_unmap_gfn_range() | #kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() 
> -------------------|------------------------|--------------------------
> before this series |         44             |    43920               
> after  this series |      17352             |     8668                 

> 
> 
>>
>> however numa balance notification, pmd table of vm maybe needs not be freed
>> in kvm_unmap_gfn_range.
>>
>