[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240413004031.GQ3039520@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:40:31 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, erdemaktas@...gle.com,
Sagi Shahar <sagis@...gle.com>, Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>,
chen.bo@...el.com, hang.yuan@...el.com, tina.zhang@...el.com,
isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 087/130] KVM: TDX: handle vcpu migration over logical
processor
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 03:46:05PM -0700,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:15:29AM -0700, Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com> wrote:
> > > > +void tdx_mmu_release_hkid(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > +{
> > > > + while (__tdx_mmu_release_hkid(kvm) == -EBUSY)
> > > > + ;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > As I understand, __tdx_mmu_release_hkid() returns -EBUSY
> > > after TDH.VP.FLUSH has been sent for every vCPU followed by
> > > TDH.MNG.VPFLUSHDONE, which returns TDX_FLUSHVP_NOT_DONE.
> > >
> > > Considering earlier comment that a retry of TDH.VP.FLUSH is not
> > > needed, why is this while() loop here that sends the
> > > TDH.VP.FLUSH again to all vCPUs instead of just a loop within
> > > __tdx_mmu_release_hkid() to _just_ resend TDH.MNG.VPFLUSHDONE?
> > >
> > > Could it be possible for a vCPU to appear during this time, thus
> > > be missed in one TDH.VP.FLUSH cycle, to require a new cycle of
> > > TDH.VP.FLUSH?
> >
> > Yes. There is a race between closing KVM vCPU fd and MMU notifier release hook.
> > When KVM vCPU fd is closed, vCPU context can be loaded again.
>
> But why is _loading_ a vCPU context problematic?
It's nothing problematic. It becomes a bit harder to understand why
tdx_mmu_release_hkid() issues IPI on each loop. I think it's reasonable
to make the normal path easy and to complicate/penalize the destruction path.
Probably I should've added comment on the function.
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists