Re: [PATCH 12/17] kvm-arm: Add explicit hyp page table modifiers

[Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>]

On 08/04/16 16:09, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 08/04/16 14:15, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:26:12PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>> We have common routines to modify hyp and stage2 page tables
>>> based on the 'kvm' parameter. For a smoother transition to
>>> using separate routines for each, duplicate the routines
>>> and modify the copy to work on hyp.
>>>
>>> Marks the forked routines with _hyp_ and gets rid of the
>>> kvm parameter which is no longer needed and is NULL for hyp.
>>> Also, gets rid of calls to kvm_tlb_flush_by_vmid_ipa() calls
>>> from the hyp versions. Uses explicit host page table accessors
>>> instead of the kvm_* page table helpers.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>

>>> +static void unmap_hyp_ptes(pmd_t *pmd, phys_addr_t addr, phys_addr_t end)
>>> +{
>>> +	pte_t *pte, *start_pte;
>>> +
>>> +	start_pte = pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, addr);
>>> +	do {
>>> +		if (!pte_none(*pte)) {
>>> +			pte_t old_pte = *pte;
>>> +
>>> +			kvm_set_pte(pte, __pte(0));
>>> +
>>> +			/* XXX: Do we need to invalidate the cache for device mappings ? */
>>
>> no, we will not be swapping out any pages mapped in Hyp mode so you can
>> get rid of both of the following two lines.

OK, will remove this hunk.

>>
>>> +			if (!kvm_is_device_pfn(pte_pfn(old_pte)))
>>> +				kvm_flush_dcache_pte(old_pte);
>>> +
>>> +			put_page(virt_to_page(pte));
>>> +		}
>>> +	} while (pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
>>> +
>>> +	if (hyp_pte_table_empty(start_pte))
>>> +		clear_hyp_pmd_entry(pmd);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void unmap_hyp_pmds(pud_t *pud, phys_addr_t addr, phys_addr_t end)
>>> +{
>>> +	phys_addr_t next;
>>> +	pmd_t *pmd, *start_pmd;
>>> +
>>> +	start_pmd = pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
>>> +	do {
>>> +		next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
>>> +		if (!pmd_none(*pmd)) {
>>> +			if (pmd_thp_or_huge(*pmd)) {
>>
>> do we ever actually map anything with section mappings in the Hyp
>> mappings?
>
> No, this is purely a page mapping so far. On my system, the HYP text is
> just over 4 pages big (4k pages), so the incentive is pretty low, unless
> we can demonstrate some big gains due to the reduced TLB impact.


>>> +static void unmap_hyp_puds(pgd_t *pgd, phys_addr_t addr, phys_addr_t end)
>>> +{
>>> +	phys_addr_t next;
>>> +	pud_t *pud, *start_pud;
>>> +
>>> +	start_pud = pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
>>> +	do {
>>> +		next = pud_addr_end(addr, end);
>>> +		if (!pud_none(*pud)) {
>>> +			if (pud_huge(*pud)) {
>>
>> do we ever actually map anything with huge pud
>> mappings for the Hyp space?
>
> Same thing. Looks like there is some potential simplification here.

Right, we don't map anything with section mapping. I can clean these up.

>>> +static void unmap_hyp_range(pgd_t *pgdp, phys_addr_t start, u64 size)
>>> +{
>>> +	pgd_t *pgd;
>>> +	phys_addr_t addr = start, end = start + size;
>>> +	phys_addr_t next;
>>> +
>>> +	pgd = pgdp + pgd_index(addr);
>>> +	do {
>>> +		next = pgd_addr_end(addr, end);
>>> +		if (!pgd_none(*pgd))
>>> +			unmap_hyp_puds(pgd, addr, next);
>>> +	} while (pgd++, addr = next, addr != end);
>>
>> shouldn't we flush the EL2 (hyp) TLB here, strictly speaking?
>>
>> Or do we rely on all mappings ever created/torn down here to always have
>> the same VA/PA relationship?  Since we didn't flush the EL2 TLB in the
>> existing code, that indeed does seem to be the case.
>
> Actually, we never unmap anything from HYP.

Except for the kvm tearing down where we clean up all the hyp table.

> Once a structure (kvm, vcpu)is mapped there, it stays forever, whatever happens
> to the VM (that's because we'd otherwise have to refcount the number of objects in a page,
> and I'm lazy...).

Thats one of my TODO list if there is sufficient interest in getting that done.

Thanks
Suzuki