Re: [RFC PATCH 6/7] arm64: KVM: Handle trappable TLB instructions

[Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:37:08 +0100
Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com> wrote:

> Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com> writes:
> 
> > Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> writes:
> >  
> >> Hi Punit,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:45:11AM +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote:  
> >>> The ARMv8 architecture allows trapping of TLB maintenane instructions
> >>> from EL0/EL1 to higher exception levels. On encountering a trappable TLB
> >>> instruction in a guest, an exception is taken to EL2.
> >>> 
> >>> Add functionality to handle emulating the TLB instructions.
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
> >>> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> >>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>  
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>  
> >>> +void __hyp_text
> >>> +__kvm_emulate_tlb_invalidate(struct kvm *kvm, u32 sys_op, u64 regval)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	kvm = kern_hyp_va(kvm);
> >>> +
> >>> +	/*
> >>> +	 * Switch to the guest before performing any TLB operations to
> >>> +	 * target the appropriate VMID
> >>> +	 */
> >>> +	__switch_to_guest_regime(kvm);
> >>> +
> >>> +	/*
> >>> +	 *  TLB maintenance operations broadcast to inner-shareable
> >>> +	 *  domain when HCR_FB is set (default for KVM).
> >>> +	 */
> >>> +	switch (sys_op) {
> >>> +	case TLBIALL:
> >>> +	case TLBIALLIS:
> >>> +	case ITLBIALL:
> >>> +	case DTLBIALL:
> >>> +	case TLBI_VMALLE1:
> >>> +	case TLBI_VMALLE1IS:
> >>> +		__tlbi(vmalle1is);
> >>> +		break;
> >>> +	case TLBIMVA:
> >>> +	case TLBIMVAIS:
> >>> +	case ITLBIMVA:
> >>> +	case DTLBIMVA:
> >>> +	case TLBI_VAE1:
> >>> +	case TLBI_VAE1IS:
> >>> +		__tlbi(vae1is, regval);  
> >>
> >> I'm pretty nervous about this. Although you've switched in the guest stage-2
> >> page table before the TLB maintenance, we're still running on a host stage-1
> >> and it's not clear to me that the stage-1 context is completely ignored for
> >> the purposes of a stage-1 TLBI executed at EL2.
> >>
> >> For example, if TCR_EL1.TBI0 is set in the guest but cleared in the host,
> >> my reading of the architecture is that it will be treated as zero when
> >> we perform this invalidation operation. I worry that we have similar
> >> problems with the granule size, where bits become RES0 in the TLBI VA
> >> ops.  
> >
> > Some control bits seem to be explicitly called out to not affect TLB
> > maintenance operations[0] but I hadn't considered the ones you highlight.
> >
> > [0] ARMv8 ARM DDI 0487A.j D4.7, Pg D4-1814
> >  
> >>
> >> Finally, we should probably be masking out the RES0 bits in the TLBI
> >> ops, just in case some future extension to the architecture defines them
> >> in such a way where they have different meanings when executed at EL2
> >> or EL1.  
> >
> > Although, the RES0 bits for TLBI VA ops are currently ignored, I agree
> > that masking them out based on granule size protects against future
> > incompatible changes.
> >  
> >>
> >> The easiest thing to do is just TLBI VMALLE1IS for all trapped operations,
> >> but you might want to see how that performs.  
> >
> > That sounds reasonable for correctness. But I suspect we'll have to do
> > more to claw back some performance. Let me run a few tests and come back
> > on this.  
> 
> Assuming I've correctly switched in TCR and replacing the various TLB
> operations in this patch with TLBI VMALLE1IS, there is a drop in kernel
> build times of ~5% (384s vs 363s).

Note that if all you're doing is a VMALLE1IS, switching TCR_EL1 should
not be necessary, as all that is required for this invalidation is the
VMID.

> For the next version, I'll use this as a starting point and try clawing
> back the loss by using the appropriate TLB instructions albeit with
> additional sanity checking based on context.

Great, thanks!

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.