[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20231125083400.1399197-4-pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2023 03:33:59 -0500
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: seanjc@...gle.com, mlevitsk@...hat.com
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: x86/mmu: always take tdp_mmu_pages_lock
It is cheap to take tdp_mmu_pages_lock in all write-side critical sections.
We already do it all the time when zapping with read_lock(), so it is not
a problem to do it from the kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_all() path (aka
kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all(), aka VM destruction and MMU notifier release).
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
---
Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst | 7 +++----
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 11 ++++++-----
arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 24 ++++--------------------
3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
v1->v2: fix kerneldoc
diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst
index 3a034db5e55f..02880d5552d5 100644
--- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst
+++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst
@@ -43,10 +43,9 @@ On x86:
- vcpu->mutex is taken outside kvm->arch.hyperv.hv_lock and kvm->arch.xen.xen_lock
-- kvm->arch.mmu_lock is an rwlock. kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock and
- kvm->arch.mmu_unsync_pages_lock are taken inside kvm->arch.mmu_lock, and
- cannot be taken without already holding kvm->arch.mmu_lock (typically with
- ``read_lock`` for the TDP MMU, thus the need for additional spinlocks).
+- kvm->arch.mmu_lock is an rwlock; critical sections for
+ kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock and kvm->arch.mmu_unsync_pages_lock must
+ also take kvm->arch.mmu_lock
Everything else is a leaf: no other lock is taken inside the critical
sections.
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index d7036982332e..f58d318e37aa 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -1406,9 +1406,8 @@ struct kvm_arch {
* the MMU lock in read mode + RCU or
* the MMU lock in write mode
*
- * For writes, this list is protected by:
- * the MMU lock in read mode + the tdp_mmu_pages_lock or
- * the MMU lock in write mode
+ * For writes, this list is protected by tdp_mmu_pages_lock; see
+ * below for the details.
*
* Roots will remain in the list until their tdp_mmu_root_count
* drops to zero, at which point the thread that decremented the
@@ -1425,8 +1424,10 @@ struct kvm_arch {
* - possible_nx_huge_pages;
* - the possible_nx_huge_page_link field of kvm_mmu_page structs used
* by the TDP MMU
- * It is acceptable, but not necessary, to acquire this lock when
- * the thread holds the MMU lock in write mode.
+ * Because the lock is only taken within the MMU lock, strictly
+ * speaking it is redundant to acquire this lock when the thread
+ * holds the MMU lock in write mode. However it often simplifies
+ * the code to do so.
*/
spinlock_t tdp_mmu_pages_lock;
#endif /* CONFIG_X86_64 */
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
index a85b31a3fc44..d3473f4bf246 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
@@ -75,12 +75,6 @@ static void tdp_mmu_free_sp_rcu_callback(struct rcu_head *head)
void kvm_tdp_mmu_put_root(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *root)
{
- /*
- * Either read or write is okay, but mmu_lock must be held because
- * writers are not required to take tdp_mmu_pages_lock.
- */
- lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->mmu_lock);
-
if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&root->tdp_mmu_root_count))
return;
@@ -281,28 +275,18 @@ static void tdp_unaccount_mmu_page(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
*
* @kvm: kvm instance
* @sp: the page to be removed
- * @shared: This operation may not be running under the exclusive use of
- * the MMU lock and the operation must synchronize with other
- * threads that might be adding or removing pages.
*/
-static void tdp_mmu_unlink_sp(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
- bool shared)
+static void tdp_mmu_unlink_sp(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
{
tdp_unaccount_mmu_page(kvm, sp);
if (!sp->nx_huge_page_disallowed)
return;
- if (shared)
- spin_lock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
- else
- lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
-
+ spin_lock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
sp->nx_huge_page_disallowed = false;
untrack_possible_nx_huge_page(kvm, sp);
-
- if (shared)
- spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
+ spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
}
/**
@@ -331,7 +315,7 @@ static void handle_removed_pt(struct kvm *kvm, tdp_ptep_t pt, bool shared)
trace_kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page(sp);
- tdp_mmu_unlink_sp(kvm, sp, shared);
+ tdp_mmu_unlink_sp(kvm, sp);
for (i = 0; i < SPTE_ENT_PER_PAGE; i++) {
tdp_ptep_t sptep = pt + i;
--
2.39.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists