All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
	Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
	David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/17] KVM: arm64: Take an argument to indicate parallel walk
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 16:03:09 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YlrovTwbgjeuxXea@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871qxxb700.wl-maz@kernel.org>

On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 12:30:23PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:58:49 +0100,
> Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > It is desirable to reuse the same page walkers for serial and parallel
> > faults. Take an argument to kvm_pgtable_walk() (and throughout) to
> > indicate whether or not a walk might happen in parallel with another.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h  |  5 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c |  4 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/setup.c       |  4 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c          | 91 ++++++++++++++-------------
> >  4 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > index ea818a5f7408..74955aba5918 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags {
> >  typedef int (*kvm_pgtable_visitor_fn_t)(u64 addr, u64 end, u32 level,
> >  					kvm_pte_t *ptep, kvm_pte_t *old,
> >  					enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags flag,
> > -					void * const arg);
> > +					void * const arg, bool shared);
> 
> Am I the only one who find this really ugly? Sprinkling this all over
> the shop makes the code rather unreadable. It seems to me that having
> some sort of more general context would make more sense.

You certainly are not. This is a bit sloppy, a previous spin of this
needed to know about parallelism in the generic page walker context and
I had picked just poking the bool through instead of hitching it to
kvm_pgtable_walker. I needed to churn either way in that scheme, but
that is no longer the case now.

> For example, I would fully expect the walk context to tell us whether
> this walker is willing to share its walk. Add a predicate to that,
> which would conveniently expand to 'false' for contexts where we don't
> have RCU (such as the pKVM HYP PT management, and you should get
> something that is more manageable.

I think the blast radius is now limited to just the stage2 visitors, so
it can probably get crammed in the callback arg now. Limiting the
changes to stage2 was intentional. The hyp walkers seem to be working
fine and I'd rather not come under fire for breaking it somehow ;)

--
Thanks,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
	Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
	Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
	David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/17] KVM: arm64: Take an argument to indicate parallel walk
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 16:03:09 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YlrovTwbgjeuxXea@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871qxxb700.wl-maz@kernel.org>

On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 12:30:23PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:58:49 +0100,
> Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > It is desirable to reuse the same page walkers for serial and parallel
> > faults. Take an argument to kvm_pgtable_walk() (and throughout) to
> > indicate whether or not a walk might happen in parallel with another.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h  |  5 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c |  4 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/setup.c       |  4 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c          | 91 ++++++++++++++-------------
> >  4 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > index ea818a5f7408..74955aba5918 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags {
> >  typedef int (*kvm_pgtable_visitor_fn_t)(u64 addr, u64 end, u32 level,
> >  					kvm_pte_t *ptep, kvm_pte_t *old,
> >  					enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags flag,
> > -					void * const arg);
> > +					void * const arg, bool shared);
> 
> Am I the only one who find this really ugly? Sprinkling this all over
> the shop makes the code rather unreadable. It seems to me that having
> some sort of more general context would make more sense.

You certainly are not. This is a bit sloppy, a previous spin of this
needed to know about parallelism in the generic page walker context and
I had picked just poking the bool through instead of hitching it to
kvm_pgtable_walker. I needed to churn either way in that scheme, but
that is no longer the case now.

> For example, I would fully expect the walk context to tell us whether
> this walker is willing to share its walk. Add a predicate to that,
> which would conveniently expand to 'false' for contexts where we don't
> have RCU (such as the pKVM HYP PT management, and you should get
> something that is more manageable.

I think the blast radius is now limited to just the stage2 visitors, so
it can probably get crammed in the callback arg now. Limiting the
changes to stage2 was intentional. The hyp walkers seem to be working
fine and I'd rather not come under fire for breaking it somehow ;)

--
Thanks,
Oliver

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
	Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
	Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
	David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/17] KVM: arm64: Take an argument to indicate parallel walk
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 16:03:09 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YlrovTwbgjeuxXea@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871qxxb700.wl-maz@kernel.org>

On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 12:30:23PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:58:49 +0100,
> Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > It is desirable to reuse the same page walkers for serial and parallel
> > faults. Take an argument to kvm_pgtable_walk() (and throughout) to
> > indicate whether or not a walk might happen in parallel with another.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h  |  5 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c |  4 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/setup.c       |  4 +-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c          | 91 ++++++++++++++-------------
> >  4 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > index ea818a5f7408..74955aba5918 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags {
> >  typedef int (*kvm_pgtable_visitor_fn_t)(u64 addr, u64 end, u32 level,
> >  					kvm_pte_t *ptep, kvm_pte_t *old,
> >  					enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags flag,
> > -					void * const arg);
> > +					void * const arg, bool shared);
> 
> Am I the only one who find this really ugly? Sprinkling this all over
> the shop makes the code rather unreadable. It seems to me that having
> some sort of more general context would make more sense.

You certainly are not. This is a bit sloppy, a previous spin of this
needed to know about parallelism in the generic page walker context and
I had picked just poking the bool through instead of hitching it to
kvm_pgtable_walker. I needed to churn either way in that scheme, but
that is no longer the case now.

> For example, I would fully expect the walk context to tell us whether
> this walker is willing to share its walk. Add a predicate to that,
> which would conveniently expand to 'false' for contexts where we don't
> have RCU (such as the pKVM HYP PT management, and you should get
> something that is more manageable.

I think the blast radius is now limited to just the stage2 visitors, so
it can probably get crammed in the callback arg now. Limiting the
changes to stage2 was intentional. The hyp walkers seem to be working
fine and I'd rather not come under fire for breaking it somehow ;)

--
Thanks,
Oliver

  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-16 16:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 165+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-15 21:58 [RFC PATCH 00/17] KVM: arm64: Parallelize stage 2 fault handling Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 01/17] KVM: arm64: Directly read owner id field in stage2_pte_is_counted() Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 02/17] KVM: arm64: Only read the pte once per visit Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 16:12   ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:12     ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:12     ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 03/17] KVM: arm64: Return the next table from map callbacks Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 04/17] KVM: arm64: Protect page table traversal with RCU Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-19  2:55   ` Ricardo Koller
2022-04-19  2:55     ` Ricardo Koller
2022-04-19  2:55     ` Ricardo Koller
2022-04-19  3:01     ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-19  3:01       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-19  3:01       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 05/17] KVM: arm64: Take an argument to indicate parallel walk Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-16 11:30   ` Marc Zyngier
2022-04-16 11:30     ` Marc Zyngier
2022-04-16 11:30     ` Marc Zyngier
2022-04-16 16:03     ` Oliver Upton [this message]
2022-04-16 16:03       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-16 16:03       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 06/17] KVM: arm64: Implement break-before-make sequence for parallel walks Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-20 16:55   ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-20 16:55     ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-20 16:55     ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-20 17:06     ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-20 17:06       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-20 17:06       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 16:57   ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:57     ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:57     ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 18:52     ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 18:52       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 18:52       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-26 21:32       ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-26 21:32         ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-26 21:32         ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-25 15:13   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-25 15:13     ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-25 15:13     ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-25 16:53     ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-25 16:53       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-25 16:53       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-25 18:16       ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-25 18:16         ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-25 18:16         ` Sean Christopherson
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 07/17] KVM: arm64: Enlighten perm relax path about " Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 08/17] KVM: arm64: Spin off helper for initializing table pte Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 09/17] KVM: arm64: Tear down unlinked page tables in parallel walk Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 13:21   ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-21 13:21     ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-21 13:21     ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-21 16:40     ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 16:40       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 16:40       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-22 16:00       ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-22 16:00         ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-22 16:00         ` Quentin Perret
2022-04-22 20:41         ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-22 20:41           ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-22 20:41           ` Oliver Upton
2022-05-03 14:17           ` Quentin Perret
2022-05-03 14:17             ` Quentin Perret
2022-05-03 14:17             ` Quentin Perret
2022-05-04  6:03             ` Oliver Upton
2022-05-04  6:03               ` Oliver Upton
2022-05-04  6:03               ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 10/17] KVM: arm64: Assume a table pte is already owned in post-order traversal Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 16:11   ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:11     ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:11     ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 17:16     ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 17:16       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 17:16       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 11/17] KVM: arm64: Move MMU cache init/destroy into helpers Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 12/17] KVM: arm64: Stuff mmu page cache in sub struct Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 13/17] KVM: arm64: Setup cache for stage2 page headers Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 14/17] KVM: arm64: Punt last page reference to rcu callback for parallel walk Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-19  2:59   ` Ricardo Koller
2022-04-19  2:59     ` Ricardo Koller
2022-04-19  2:59     ` Ricardo Koller
2022-04-19  3:09     ` Ricardo Koller
2022-04-19  3:09       ` Ricardo Koller
2022-04-19  3:09       ` Ricardo Koller
2022-04-20  0:53       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-20  0:53         ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-20  0:53         ` Oliver Upton
2022-09-08  0:52         ` David Matlack
2022-09-08  0:52           ` David Matlack
2022-09-08  0:52           ` David Matlack
2022-04-21 16:28   ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:28     ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:28     ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-15 21:58 ` [RFC PATCH 15/17] KVM: arm64: Allow parallel calls to kvm_pgtable_stage2_map() Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:58   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:59 ` [RFC PATCH 16/17] KVM: arm64: Enable parallel stage 2 MMU faults Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:59   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:59   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 16:35   ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:35     ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:35     ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:46     ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 16:46       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 16:46       ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 17:03       ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 17:03         ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 17:03         ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-15 21:59 ` [RFC PATCH 17/17] TESTONLY: KVM: arm64: Add super lazy accounting of stage 2 table pages Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:59   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 21:59   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-15 23:35 ` [RFC PATCH 00/17] KVM: arm64: Parallelize stage 2 fault handling David Matlack
2022-04-15 23:35   ` David Matlack
2022-04-15 23:35   ` David Matlack
2022-04-16  0:04   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-16  0:04     ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-16  0:04     ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 16:43     ` David Matlack
2022-04-21 16:43       ` David Matlack
2022-04-21 16:43       ` David Matlack
2022-04-16  6:23 ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-16  6:23   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-16  6:23   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-19 17:57 ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-19 17:57   ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-19 17:57   ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-19 18:36   ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-19 18:36     ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-19 18:36     ` Oliver Upton
2022-04-21 16:30     ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:30       ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:30       ` Ben Gardon
2022-04-21 16:37       ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-04-21 16:37         ` Paolo Bonzini
2022-04-21 16:37         ` Paolo Bonzini

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=YlrovTwbgjeuxXea@google.com \
    --to=oupton@google.com \
    --cc=bgardon@google.com \
    --cc=dmatlack@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=pshier@google.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.