Message-ID: <Zr_3Vohvzt0KmFiN@google.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 18:05:26 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	Ankit Agrawal <ankita@...dia.com>, Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>, 
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>, 
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, 
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, 
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>, 
	Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>, 
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>, Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, 
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>, 
	kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/11] KVM: x86: Relax locking for kvm_test_age_gfn and kvm_age_gfn

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024, James Houghton wrote:
> Walk the TDP MMU in an RCU read-side critical section. 

...without holding mmu_lock, while doing xxx.  There are a lot of TDP MMU walks,
pand they all need RCU protection.

> This requires a way to do RCU-safe walking of the tdp_mmu_roots; do this with
> a new macro. The PTE modifications are now done atomically, and
> kvm_tdp_mmu_spte_need_atomic_write() has been updated to account for the fact
> that kvm_age_gfn can now lockless update the accessed bit and the R/X bits).
> 
> If the cmpxchg for marking the spte for access tracking fails, we simply
> retry if the spte is still a leaf PTE. If it isn't, we return false
> to continue the walk.

Please avoid pronouns.  E.g. s/we/KVM (and adjust grammar as needed), so that
it's clear what actor in particular is doing the retry.

> Harvesting age information from the shadow MMU is still done while
> holding the MMU write lock.
> 
> Suggested-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  1 +
>  arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig            |  1 +
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c          | 10 ++++-
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h     | 27 +++++++------
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c      | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  5 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 950a03e0181e..096988262005 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1456,6 +1456,7 @@ struct kvm_arch {
>  	 * tdp_mmu_page set.
>  	 *
>  	 * For reads, this list is protected by:
> +	 *	RCU alone or
>  	 *	the MMU lock in read mode + RCU or
>  	 *	the MMU lock in write mode
>  	 *
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig b/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
> index 4287a8071a3a..6ac43074c5e9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ config KVM
>  	depends on X86_LOCAL_APIC
>  	select KVM_COMMON
>  	select KVM_GENERIC_MMU_NOTIFIER
> +	select KVM_MMU_NOTIFIER_YOUNG_LOCKLESS
>  	select HAVE_KVM_IRQCHIP
>  	select HAVE_KVM_PFNCACHE
>  	select HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_RING_TSO
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index 901be9e420a4..7b93ce8f0680 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -1633,8 +1633,11 @@ bool kvm_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
>  {
>  	bool young = false;
>  
> -	if (kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm))
> +	if (kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm)) {
> +		write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>  		young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_age_rmap);
> +		write_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> +	}
>  
>  	if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
>  		young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(kvm, range);
> @@ -1646,8 +1649,11 @@ bool kvm_test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
>  {
>  	bool young = false;
>  
> -	if (kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm))
> +	if (kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm)) {
> +		write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>  		young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_test_age_rmap);
> +		write_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> +	}
>  
>  	if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
>  		young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_test_age_gfn(kvm, range);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> index 2880fd392e0c..510936a8455a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_iter.h
> @@ -25,6 +25,13 @@ static inline u64 kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte_atomic(tdp_ptep_t sptep, u64 new_spte)
>  	return xchg(rcu_dereference(sptep), new_spte);
>  }
>  
> +static inline u64 tdp_mmu_clear_spte_bits_atomic(tdp_ptep_t sptep, u64 mask)
> +{
> +	atomic64_t *sptep_atomic = (atomic64_t *)rcu_dereference(sptep);
> +
> +	return (u64)atomic64_fetch_and(~mask, sptep_atomic);
> +}
> +
>  static inline void __kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte(tdp_ptep_t sptep, u64 new_spte)
>  {
>  	KVM_MMU_WARN_ON(is_ept_ve_possible(new_spte));
> @@ -32,10 +39,11 @@ static inline void __kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte(tdp_ptep_t sptep, u64 new_spte)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * SPTEs must be modified atomically if they are shadow-present, leaf
> - * SPTEs, and have volatile bits, i.e. has bits that can be set outside
> - * of mmu_lock.  The Writable bit can be set by KVM's fast page fault
> - * handler, and Accessed and Dirty bits can be set by the CPU.
> + * SPTEs must be modified atomically if they have bits that can be set outside
> + * of the mmu_lock. This can happen for any shadow-present leaf SPTEs, as the
> + * Writable bit can be set by KVM's fast page fault handler, the Accessed and
> + * Dirty bits can be set by the CPU, and the Accessed and R/X bits can be
> + * cleared by age_gfn_range.
>   *
>   * Note, non-leaf SPTEs do have Accessed bits and those bits are
>   * technically volatile, but KVM doesn't consume the Accessed bit of
> @@ -46,8 +54,7 @@ static inline void __kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte(tdp_ptep_t sptep, u64 new_spte)
>  static inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_spte_need_atomic_write(u64 old_spte, int level)
>  {
>  	return is_shadow_present_pte(old_spte) &&
> -	       is_last_spte(old_spte, level) &&
> -	       spte_has_volatile_bits(old_spte);
> +	       is_last_spte(old_spte, level);
>  }
>  
>  static inline u64 kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte(tdp_ptep_t sptep, u64 old_spte,
> @@ -63,12 +70,8 @@ static inline u64 kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte(tdp_ptep_t sptep, u64 old_spte,
>  static inline u64 tdp_mmu_clear_spte_bits(tdp_ptep_t sptep, u64 old_spte,
>  					  u64 mask, int level)
>  {
> -	atomic64_t *sptep_atomic;
> -
> -	if (kvm_tdp_mmu_spte_need_atomic_write(old_spte, level)) {
> -		sptep_atomic = (atomic64_t *)rcu_dereference(sptep);
> -		return (u64)atomic64_fetch_and(~mask, sptep_atomic);
> -	}
> +	if (kvm_tdp_mmu_spte_need_atomic_write(old_spte, level))
> +		return tdp_mmu_clear_spte_bits_atomic(sptep, mask);
>  
>  	__kvm_tdp_mmu_write_spte(sptep, old_spte & ~mask);
>  	return old_spte;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> index c7dc49ee7388..3f13b2db53de 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,11 @@ static __always_inline bool kvm_lockdep_assert_mmu_lock_held(struct kvm *kvm,
>  
>  	return true;
>  }
> +static __always_inline bool kvm_lockdep_assert_rcu_read_lock_held(void)
> +{
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> +	return true;
> +}

I doubt KVM needs a manual WARN, the RCU deference stuff should yell loudly if
something is missing an rcu_read_lock().

>  void kvm_mmu_uninit_tdp_mmu(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
> @@ -178,6 +183,15 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *tdp_mmu_next_root(struct kvm *kvm,
>  		     ((_only_valid) && (_root)->role.invalid))) {		\
>  		} else
>  
> +/*
> + * Iterate over all TDP MMU roots in an RCU read-side critical section.
> + */
> +#define for_each_tdp_mmu_root_rcu(_kvm, _root, _as_id)				\
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(_root, &_kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_roots, link)		\

This should just process valid roots:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240801183453.57199-7-seanjc@google.com

> +		if (kvm_lockdep_assert_rcu_read_lock_held() &&			\
> +		    (_as_id >= 0 && kvm_mmu_page_as_id(_root) != _as_id)) {	\
> +		} else
> +
>  #define for_each_tdp_mmu_root(_kvm, _root, _as_id)			\
>  	__for_each_tdp_mmu_root(_kvm, _root, _as_id, false)
>  
> @@ -1224,6 +1238,27 @@ static __always_inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(struct kvm *kvm,
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static __always_inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn_lockless(
> +		struct kvm *kvm,
> +		struct kvm_gfn_range *range,
> +		tdp_handler_t handler)

Please burn all the Google3 from your brain, and code ;-)

> +	struct kvm_mmu_page *root;
> +	struct tdp_iter iter;
> +	bool ret = false;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +
> +	for_each_tdp_mmu_root_rcu(kvm, root, range->slot->as_id) {
> +		tdp_root_for_each_leaf_pte(iter, root, range->start, range->end)
> +			ret |= handler(kvm, &iter, range);
> +	}
> +
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Mark the SPTEs range of GFNs [start, end) unaccessed and return non-zero
>   * if any of the GFNs in the range have been accessed.
> @@ -1237,28 +1272,30 @@ static bool age_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct tdp_iter *iter,
>  {
>  	u64 new_spte;
>  
> +retry:
>  	/* If we have a non-accessed entry we don't need to change the pte. */
>  	if (!is_accessed_spte(iter->old_spte))
>  		return false;
>  
>  	if (spte_ad_enabled(iter->old_spte)) {
> -		iter->old_spte = tdp_mmu_clear_spte_bits(iter->sptep,
> -							 iter->old_spte,
> -							 shadow_accessed_mask,
> -							 iter->level);
> +		iter->old_spte = tdp_mmu_clear_spte_bits_atomic(iter->sptep,
> +						shadow_accessed_mask);
>  		new_spte = iter->old_spte & ~shadow_accessed_mask;
>  	} else {
> -		/*
> -		 * Capture the dirty status of the page, so that it doesn't get
> -		 * lost when the SPTE is marked for access tracking.
> -		 */
> +		new_spte = mark_spte_for_access_track(iter->old_spte);
> +		if (__tdp_mmu_set_spte_atomic(iter, new_spte)) {
> +			/*
> +			 * The cmpxchg failed. If the spte is still a
> +			 * last-level spte, we can safely retry.
> +			 */
> +			if (is_shadow_present_pte(iter->old_spte) &&
> +			    is_last_spte(iter->old_spte, iter->level))
> +				goto retry;

Do we have a feel for how often conflicts actually happen?  I.e. is it worth
retrying and having to worry about infinite loops, however improbable they may
be?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists