From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 21:22:32 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation unless necessary
Message-Id: <YGToGBvdfPiCr3WA@google.com>
List-Id: <kvm-ppc.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20210326021957.1424875-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20210326021957.1424875-17-seanjc@google.com>
 <6e7dc7d0-f5dc-85d9-1c50-d23b761b5ff3@redhat.com>
 <YGSmMeSOPcjxRwf6@google.com>
 <56ea69fe-87b0-154b-e286-efce9233864e@redhat.com>
 <YGTRzf/4i9Y8XR2c@google.com>
 <0e30625f-934d-9084-e293-cb3bcbc9e4b8@redhat.com>
 <YGTkLMAzk88wOiZm@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <YGTkLMAzk88wOiZm@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>, Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>, Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>, Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 31/03/21 21:47, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > I also thought of busy waiting on down_read_trylock if the MMU notifier
> > cannot block, but that would also be invalid for the opposite reason (the
> > down_write task might be asleep, waiting for other readers to release the
> > task, and the down_read_trylock busy loop might not let that task run).
> > 
> > > And that's _already_ the worst case since notifications are currently
> > > serialized by mmu_lock.
> > 
> > But right now notifications are not a single critical section, they're two,
> > aren't they?
> 
> Ah, crud, yes.  Holding a spinlock across the entire start() ... end() would be
> bad, especially when the notifier can block since that opens up the possibility
> of the task sleeping/blocking/yielding while the spinlock is held.  Bummer.

On a related topic, any preference on whether to have an explicit "must_lock"
flag (what I posted), or derive the logic based on other params?

The helper I posted does:

	if (range->must_lock &&
	    kvm_mmu_lock_and_check_handler(kvm, range, &locked))
		goto out_unlock;

but it could be:

	if (!IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->on_lock) && !range->may_block &&
	    kvm_mmu_lock_and_check_handler(kvm, range, &locked))
		goto out_unlock;

The generated code should be nearly identical on a modern compiler, so it's
purely a question of aesthetics.  I slightly prefer the explicit "must_lock" to
avoid spreading out the logic too much, but it also feels a bit superfluous.