Message-ID: <aAvKIPaOgdtOpXlh@google.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 10:45:04 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: x86/mmu: Defer allocation of shadow MMU's
 hashed page list

On Mon, Apr 21, 2025, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > > On 2025-04-01 08:57:14, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > +static __ro_after_init HLIST_HEAD(empty_page_hash);
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct hlist_head *kvm_get_mmu_page_hash(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct hlist_head *page_hash = READ_ONCE(kvm->arch.mmu_page_hash);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!page_hash)
> > > > +		return &empty_page_hash;
> > > > +
> > > > +	return &page_hash[kvm_page_table_hashfn(gfn)];
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -2357,6 +2368,7 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *__kvm_mmu_get_shadow_page(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > >  	struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
> > > >  	bool created = false;
> > > >  
> > > > +	BUG_ON(!kvm->arch.mmu_page_hash);
> > > >  	sp_list = &kvm->arch.mmu_page_hash[kvm_page_table_hashfn(gfn)];
> > > 
> > > Why do we need READ_ONCE() at kvm_get_mmu_page_hash() but not here?
> > 
> > We don't (need it in kvm_get_mmu_page_hash()).  I suspect past me was thinking
> > it could be accessed without holding mmu_lock, but that's simply not true.  Unless
> > I'm forgetting, something, I'll drop the READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() in
> > kvm_mmu_alloc_page_hash(), and instead assert that mmu_lock is held for write.
> 
> I remembered what I was trying to do.  The _writer_, kvm_mmu_alloc_page_hash(),
> doesn't hold mmu_lock, and so the READ/WRITE_ONCE() is needed.
> 
> But looking at this again, there's really no point in such games.  All readers
> hold mmu_lock for write, so kvm_mmu_alloc_page_hash() can take mmu_lock for read
> to ensure correctness.  That's far easier to reason about than taking a dependency
> on shadow_root_allocated.
> 
> For performance, taking mmu_lock for read is unlikely to generate contention, as
> this is only reachable at runtime if the TDP MMU is enabled.  And mmu_lock is
> going to be taken for write anyways (to allocate the shadow root).

Wrong again.  After way, way too many failed attempts (I tried some truly stupid
ideas) and staring, I finally remembered why it's a-ok to set arch.mmu_page_hash
outside of mmu_lock, and why it's a-ok for __kvm_mmu_get_shadow_page() to not use
READ_ONCE().  I guess that's my penance for not writing a decent changelog or
comments.

Setting the list outside of mmu_lock is safe, as concurrent readers must hold
mmu_lock in some capacity, shadow pages can only be added (or removed) from the
list when mmu_lock is held for write, and tasks that are creating a shadow root
are serialized by slots_arch_lock.  I.e. it's impossible for the list to become
non-empty until all readers go away, and so readers are guaranteed to see an empty
list even if they make multiple calls to kvm_get_mmu_page_hash() in a single
mmu_lock critical section.

__kvm_mmu_get_shadow_page() doesn't need READ_ONCE() because it's only reachable
after the task has gone through mmu_first_shadow_root_alloc(), i.e. access to
mmu_page_hash in that context is fully serialized by slots_arch_lock.

> > > My understanding is that it is in kvm_get_mmu_page_hash() to avoid compiler
> > > doing any read tear. If yes, then the same condition is valid here, isn't it?
> > 
> > The intent wasn't to guard against a tear, but to instead ensure mmu_page_hash
> > couldn't be re-read and end up with a NULL pointer deref, e.g. if KVM set
> > mmu_page_hash and then nullfied it because some later step failed.  But if
> > mmu_lock is held for write, that is simply impossible.

So yes, you were 100% correct, the only reason for WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE is to
ensure the compiler doesn't do something stupid and tear the accesses.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists