linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 08/11] KVM: x86: Optimize kvm_{test_,}age

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CADrL8HXnV8cmpytBSvGPvqvhjryWwT__MwWLbjzxX6hbd2UxFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 17:34:13 -0700
From: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>, 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 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 08/11] KVM: x86: Optimize kvm_{test_,}age_gfn a little bit

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 6:00 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024, David Matlack wrote:
> > On 2024-07-24 01:10 AM, James Houghton wrote:
> > > Optimize both kvm_age_gfn and kvm_test_age_gfn's interaction with the
> >
> > nit: Use () when referring to functions.
> >
> > > shadow MMU by, rather than checking if our memslot has rmaps, check if
> > > there are any indirect_shadow_pages at all.
> >
> > What is optimized by checking indirect_shadow_pages instead of
> > have_rmaps and what's the benefit? Smells like a premature optimization.
>
> Checking indirect_shadow_pages avoids taking mmu_lock for write when KVM doesn't
> currently have shadow MMU pages, but did at some point in the past, whereas
> kvm_memslots_have_rmaps() is sticky and will return true forever.

Thanks for the clear explanation.

> > > Also, for kvm_test_age_gfn, reorder the TDP MMU check to be first. If we
> > > find that the range is young, we do not need to check the shadow MMU.
> >
> > This should be a separate commit since it's a logically distinct change
> > and no dependency on the other change in this commit (other than both
> > touch the same function).

Done.

> > Splitting the commits up will also make it easier to write more specific
> > short logs (instead of "optimize a little bit" :)
>
> +1.  Especially code movement and refactoring, e.g. factoring out
> tdp_mmu_clear_spte_bits_atomic() would ideally be in a standalone patch that's
> dead simple to review.

I have now split out the creation of tdp_mmu_clear_spte_bits_atomic()
into its own patch. Though I'm not entirely convinced splitting out
every refactor like that is always a good thing.