Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] TDX: Enable Dynamic PAMT

["Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>]

On Fri, 2025-09-26 at 09:11 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> If it can't return failure then the _only_ other option is to spin.
> Right?

Yea, but you could spin around the SEAMCALL or you could spin on
duplicate locks on the kernel side before making the SEAMCALL. Or put
more generally, you could prevent contention before you make the
SEACMALL. KVM does this also by kicking vCPUs out of the TDX module via
IPI in other cases.

> 
> I understand the reluctance to have such a nasty spin loop. But other
> than reworking the KVM code to do the retries at a higher level,

Re-working KVM code would be tough, although teaching KVM to fail zap
calls has come up before for TDX/gmem interactions. It was looked at
and decided to be too complex. Now I guess the benefit side of the
equation changes a little bit, but doing it only for TDX might still be
a bridge to far.

Unless anyone is holding onto another usage that might want this?

>  is there another option?

I don't see why we can't just duplicate the locking in a more matching
way on the kernel side. Before the plan to someday drop the global lock
if needed, was to switch to 2MB granular locks to match the TDX
module's exclusive lock internal behavior.

What Yan is basically pointing out is that there are shared locks that
are also taken on different ranges that could possibly contend with the
exclusive one that we are duplicating on the kernel side.

So the problem is not fundamental to the approach I think. We just took
a shortcut by ignoring the shared locks. For line-of-sight to a path to
remove the global lock someday, I think we could make the 2MB granular
locks be reader/writer to match the TDX module. Then around the
SEAMCALLs that take these locks, we could take them on the kernel side
in the right order for whichever SEAMCALL we are making.

And that would only be the plan if we wanted to improve scalability
someday without changing the TDX module.