linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: async_pf: check earlier if can deliver async pf

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: <Zz-gmpMvNm_292BC@google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 13:05:30 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Nikita Kalyazin <kalyazin@...zon.com>
Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, 
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, 
	oleg@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, gshan@...hat.com, graf@...zon.de, 
	jgowans@...zon.com, roypat@...zon.co.uk, derekmn@...zon.com, nsaenz@...zon.es, 
	xmarcalx@...zon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: async_pf: check earlier if can deliver async pf

On Thu, Nov 21, 2024, Nikita Kalyazin wrote:
> On 19/11/2024 13:24, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > None of this justifies breaking host-side, non-paravirt async page faults.  If a
> > vCPU hits a missing page, KVM can schedule out the vCPU and let something else
> > run on the pCPU, or enter idle and let the SMT sibling get more cycles, or maybe
> > even enter a low enough sleep state to let other cores turbo a wee bit.
> > 
> > I have no objection to disabling host async page faults, e.g. it's probably a net
> > negative for 1:1 vCPU:pCPU pinned setups, but such disabling needs an opt-in from
> > userspace.
> 
> That's a good point, I didn't think about it.  The async work would still
> need to execute somewhere in that case (or sleep in GUP until the page is
> available).

The "async work" is often an I/O operation, e.g. to pull in the page from disk,
or over the network from the source.  The *CPU* doesn't need to actively do
anything for those operations.  The I/O is initiated, so the CPU can do something
else, or go idle if there's no other work to be done.

> If processing the fault synchronously, the vCPU thread can also sleep in the
> same way freeing the pCPU for something else,

If and only if the vCPU can handle a PV async #PF.  E.g. if the guest kernel flat
out doesn't support PV async #PF, or the fault happened while the guest was in an
incompatible mode, etc.

If KVM doesn't do async #PFs of any kind, the vCPU will spin on the fault until
the I/O completes and the page is ready.

> so the amount of work to be done looks equivalent (please correct me
> otherwise).  What's the net gain of moving that to an async work in the host
> async fault case? "while allowing interrupt delivery into the guest." -- is
> this the main advantage?