From: James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Recover TDP MMU NX huge pages using MMU read lock
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 14:48:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADrL8HWE+TQ8Vm1a=eb5ZKo2+zeeE-b8-PUXLOS0g5KuJ5kfZQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aIft7sUk_w8rV2DB@google.com>
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 2:38 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025, David Matlack wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 11:08 AM James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 1:35 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > @@ -7559,8 +7590,17 @@ static void kvm_recover_nx_huge_pages(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > >
> > > > > for ( ; to_zap; --to_zap) {
> > > > > - if (list_empty(nx_huge_pages))
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > >
> > > > These #ifdefs still make me sad, but I also still think they're the least awful
> > > > solution. And hopefully we will jettison 32-bit sooner than later :-)
> > >
> > > Yeah I couldn't come up with anything better. :(
> >
> > Could we just move the definition of tdp_mmu_pages_lock outside of
> > CONFIG_X86_64? The only downside I can think of is slightly larger kvm
> > structs for 32-bit builds.
>
> Hmm, I was going to say "no, because we'd also need to do spin_lock_init()", but
> obviously spin_(un)lock() will only ever be invoked for 64-bit kernels. I still
> don't love the idea of making tdp_mmu_pages_lock visible outside of CONFIG_X86_64,
> it feels like we're just asking to introduce (likely benign) bugs.
>
> Ugh, and I just noticed this as well:
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_X86_64
> #define KVM_TDP_MMU -1
> #endif
>
> Rather than expose kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock, what about using a single #ifdef
> section to bury both is_tdp_mmu and a local kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock pointer?
SGTM.
>
> Alternatively, we could do:
>
> const bool is_tdp_mmu = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64) && mmu_type != KVM_SHADOW_MMU;
I tried something like this before and it didn't work; my compiler
still complained. Maybe I didn't do it quite right...
>
> to avoid referencing KVM_TDP_MMU, but that's quite ugly. Overall, I think the
> below strikes the best balance between polluting the code with #ifdefs, and
> generating robust code.
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 52bf6a886bfd..c038d7cd187d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1372,10 +1372,6 @@ enum kvm_mmu_type {
> KVM_NR_MMU_TYPES,
> };
>
> -#ifndef CONFIG_X86_64
> -#define KVM_TDP_MMU -1
> -#endif
> -
> struct kvm_arch {
> unsigned long n_used_mmu_pages;
> unsigned long n_requested_mmu_pages;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index a6a1fb42b2d1..e2bde6a5e346 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -7624,8 +7624,14 @@ static bool kvm_mmu_sp_dirty_logging_enabled(struct kvm *kvm,
> static void kvm_recover_nx_huge_pages(struct kvm *kvm,
> const enum kvm_mmu_type mmu_type)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> + const bool is_tdp_mmu = mmu_type == KVM_TDP_MMU;
> + spinlock_t *tdp_mmu_pages_lock = &kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock;
> +#else
> + const bool is_tdp_mmu = false;
> + spinlock_t *tdp_mmu_pages_lock = NULL;
> +#endif
> unsigned long to_zap = nx_huge_pages_to_zap(kvm, mmu_type);
> - bool is_tdp_mmu = mmu_type == KVM_TDP_MMU;
> struct list_head *nx_huge_pages;
> struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
> LIST_HEAD(invalid_list);
> @@ -7648,15 +7654,12 @@ static void kvm_recover_nx_huge_pages(struct kvm *kvm,
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> for ( ; to_zap; --to_zap) {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> if (is_tdp_mmu)
> - spin_lock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> -#endif
> + spin_lock(tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> +
> if (list_empty(nx_huge_pages)) {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> if (is_tdp_mmu)
> - spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> -#endif
> + spin_unlock(tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> break;
> }
>
> @@ -7675,10 +7678,8 @@ static void kvm_recover_nx_huge_pages(struct kvm *kvm,
>
> unaccount_nx_huge_page(kvm, sp);
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> if (is_tdp_mmu)
> - spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
> -#endif
> + spin_unlock(tdp_mmu_pages_lock);
>
> /*
> * Do not attempt to recover any NX Huge Pages that are being
> --
LGTM! Thanks Sean.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-28 21:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-07 22:47 [PATCH v5 0/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Run TDP MMU NX huge page recovery under MMU read lock James Houghton
2025-07-07 22:47 ` [PATCH v5 1/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Track TDP MMU NX huge pages separately James Houghton
2025-08-19 17:57 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-07-07 22:47 ` [PATCH v5 2/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Rename kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_sp() to better indicate its purpose James Houghton
2025-07-07 22:47 ` [PATCH v5 3/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Recover TDP MMU NX huge pages using MMU read lock James Houghton
2025-07-23 20:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-07-28 18:07 ` James Houghton
2025-07-28 18:17 ` David Matlack
2025-07-28 21:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-07-28 21:48 ` James Houghton [this message]
2025-08-01 18:17 ` David Matlack
2025-08-01 22:00 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-12 19:21 ` David Matlack
2025-07-07 22:47 ` [PATCH v5 4/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Only grab RCU lock for nx hugepage recovery for TDP MMU James Houghton
2025-07-23 20:38 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-07-28 17:51 ` James Houghton
2025-07-07 22:47 ` [PATCH v5 5/7] KVM: selftests: Introduce a selftest to measure execution performance James Houghton
2025-07-23 20:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-07-29 0:18 ` James Houghton
2025-07-07 22:47 ` [PATCH v5 6/7] KVM: selftests: Provide extra mmap flags in vm_mem_add() James Houghton
2025-07-07 22:47 ` [PATCH v5 7/7] KVM: selftests: Add an NX huge pages jitter test James Houghton
2025-07-23 21:04 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-07-28 18:40 ` James Houghton
2025-08-01 14:11 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-08-01 18:45 ` James Houghton
2025-08-01 22:30 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-07-23 20:44 ` [PATCH v5 0/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Run TDP MMU NX huge page recovery under MMU read lock Sean Christopherson
2025-07-29 0:19 ` James Houghton
2025-08-19 23:12 ` Sean Christopherson
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='CADrL8HWE+TQ8Vm1a=eb5ZKo2+zeeE-b8-PUXLOS0g5KuJ5kfZQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jthoughton@google.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=vipinsh@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).