[PATCH v4 6/7] KVM: arm64: Relax locking for kvm_test_age_gfn and kvm_age_gfn

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Tue, Jun 04, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 03:20:20PM -0700, James Houghton wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:18?PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:11:33PM -0700, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 06:05:09PM +0000, James Houghton wrote:
> > > Oh, and the WARN_ON() in kvm_pgtable_stage2_test_clear_young() is bogus
> > > now. Maybe demote it to:
> > >
> > >   r = kvm_pgtable_walk(...);
> > >   WARN_ON_ONCE(r && r != -EAGAIN);
> > 
> > Oh, indeed, thank you. Just to make sure -- does it make sense to
> > retry the cmpxchg if it fails? For example, the way I have it now for
> > x86[1], we retry the cmpxchg if the spte is still a leaf, otherwise we
> > move on to the next one having done nothing. Does something like that
> > make sense for arm64?
> 
> At least for arm64 I do not see a need for retry. The only possible
> races are:
> 
>  - A stage-2 fault handler establishing / adjusting the mapping for the
>    GFN. If the guest is directly accessing the GFN in question, what's
>    the point of wiping out AF?
> 
>    Even when returning -EAGAIN we've already primed stage2_age_data::young,
>    so we report the correct state back to the primary MMU.
> 
>  - Another kvm_age_gfn() trying to age the same GFN. I haven't even
>    looked to see if this is possible from the primary MMU POV, but in
>    theory one of the calls will win the race and clear AF.
> 
> Given Yu's concerns about making pending writers wait, we should take
> every opportunity to bail on the walk.

+1.  The x86 path that retries is, for all intents and purposes, limited to Intel
CPUs that don't support EPT A/D bits, i.e. to pre-HSW CPUs.  I wouldn't make any
decisions based on that code.