All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>,
	Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Always invalidate TLB for stage-2 permission faults
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2023 11:12:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ttrj5181.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZQ4eZcWRO/nHnGc4@linux.dev>

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 00:08:21 +0100,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:32:29PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > It is possible for multiple vCPUs to fault on the same IPA and attempt
> > to resolve the fault. One of the page table walks will actually update
> > the PTE and the rest will return -EAGAIN per our race detection scheme.
> > KVM elides the TLB invalidation on the racing threads as the return
> > value is nonzero.
> > 
> > Before commit a12ab1378a88 ("KVM: arm64: Use local TLBI on permission
> > relaxation") KVM always used broadcast TLB invalidations when handling
> > permission faults, which had the convenient property of making the
> > stage-2 updates visible to all CPUs in the system. However now we do a
> > local invalidation, and TLBI elision leads to vCPUs getting stuck in a
> > permission fault loop. Remember that the architecture permits the TLB to
> > cache translations that precipitate a permission fault.
> 
> The effects of this are slightly overstated (got ahead of myself).
> EAGAIN only crops up if the cmpxchg() fails, we return 0 if the PTE
> didn't need to be updated.
> 
> On the subsequent permission fault we'll do the right thing and
> invalidate the TLB, so this change is purely an optimization rather than
> a correctness issue.

Can you measure the actual effect of this change? In my (limited)
experience, I had to actually trick the guest into doing this, and
opportunistically invalidating TLBs didn't have any significant
benefit.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-24 10:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-22 22:32 [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Always invalidate TLB for stage-2 permission faults Oliver Upton
2023-09-22 23:08 ` Oliver Upton
2023-09-24 10:12   ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2023-09-25 23:43     ` Oliver Upton
2023-09-29  9:17       ` Marc Zyngier
2023-09-30 18:12 ` Oliver Upton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87ttrj5181.wl-maz@kernel.org \
    --to=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=jingzhangos@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=vipinsh@google.com \
    --cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.