From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f73.google.com (mail-pj1-f73.google.com [209.85.216.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0842F26FA6B for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:45:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.73 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740494702; cv=none; b=udQZXQoHvchp4iZ6VLOMJqMVaqICsu8KlL3kttl6LvOaC2Lx1szVx8MPWGVLfOy9mCroIu+zijaiDf5Jy0kNxUTm1kV5OLDtIb2BF7hPQ8Pjj8n8+bPgxPwTu51Pa/8vdEwWlE+bWtCSVAMLTq1JGQL3YwIEikid6qF4pfjs8Xc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740494702; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JVQ6Hr0btkRg9FyQveqK2uYTu6pLizXhjF4MAm5RJjg=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=pwVGIbQ+/wsJrerFnBRI2Gy7633FvDmCLtSompDepFEU8iRSXujAfQ+YGu5MwovVy1b4xptsGMhkMztrLTkrvxS42quQjZFyflZ4QK0SsWIstLDd3IZpsjHIrSo7WdT2nZG/j0kjduMi9P/PozsZZi99lL6Tnd9oYR7A48irnKk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=tUcA1Bci; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.73 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="tUcA1Bci" Received: by mail-pj1-f73.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2fc17c3eeb5so11780546a91.1 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 06:45:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1740494700; x=1741099500; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NffzjCDpuTmdNSnLuEbvoNsdUgp9uFncpWixfvcrqX0=; b=tUcA1BciX5VRiNq1kY0Uat/uX67XRbRqQaMz9De0918dbtV0JrGjP60KHiBirMVP22 cBb4kXeEhmvFpjEG64mpOEZfTwKGc8EOVRVTHYtp4UJgK3RW31vmBYkomAxlUI25giWB LPZ03cESi6bCSxL/+w+nlQYiu6V4WeRuHb7ojUoWR5wkziB7CNkiSN0NjHFyd2okF5GC C8XshHnZcmSENOdUzrjMSwixQ9HUzhOqLPsEgJwclRubOT0bOYGa73uKlh/CXydiosoi 6WvsqN18/A8h8d6lwZ0Rfy+lS5e0qW6UspZ+UqEaQj2fomPcDHDPy38X2o3RbHao6ISe lYHg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740494700; x=1741099500; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NffzjCDpuTmdNSnLuEbvoNsdUgp9uFncpWixfvcrqX0=; b=KK7cs2Iy7uRTgiGxqUE2DQg5/6pvfeXaEnMlpnC3dp2VtQZ0zKeaaOgGVVhnlnlBsW Ch4xsSWfXMRicY3iQALhKQQ7cEJmuKC020N2Uxc4mvZn/RgxZyuldFFtNV8XNeqpGRJm SZxhH+fLd2dwosalx4VsoSPe4bBlHNEhnv0nd8Uk6A4UQmKwSszzK/fYeCv6s85a2Zzx /UJmk7nwZAtwmSXLZwKTNkhqo3FPD6NrL8OPwN6PbEc+pXEyvukaLgoNP3CHwuLLrl23 zb2dcTRIeruH3tbp9IsqvryvXODRhiMe2hh9MaGbnS0rg3Mc+SN2cP/scjKiiQKo1HuK n/9Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW90bz2Nd/nqbepw+mqGG6C8KIfYN8h3daCxZrHZh7CtFdZYcTD9f9PWxLeW8ZkBA6rt8c=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz1NyWneBLTrLAeBjb2F0AZSh/Xj6pJlBXwrzW2t7zDu0CSimjU kxpj8dxLuyRNVlxMemi96PixEAeekoEtPH0s2HhTn5qnlFt62AMlbqXG8Ii4fdbWEmDcF9OD4lt ssg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG2KruXetDYoI9qbCSWmcITW+yhg6mxBcrrqoCenX7IkOOc3aJKkHxPw+LBj1f6DGaIHr4WklpxusU= X-Received: from pjh14.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:90b:3f8e:b0:2ea:29de:af10]) (user=seanjc job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:90b:548f:b0:2ee:d7d3:3008 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2fce86ae5d0mr31991980a91.12.1740494700343; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 06:45:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 06:44:58 -0800 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20250224235542.2562848-1-seanjc@google.com> <20250224235542.2562848-5-seanjc@google.com> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] KVM: x86: Don't load/put vCPU when unloading its MMU during teardown From: Sean Christopherson To: Yan Zhao Cc: Marc Zyngier , Oliver Upton , Tianrui Zhao , Bibo Mao , Huacai Chen , Madhavan Srinivasan , Anup Patel , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , Paolo Bonzini , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Aaron Lewis , Jim Mattson , Rick P Edgecombe , Kai Huang , Isaku Yamahata Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tue, Feb 25, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 03:55:39PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Don't load (and then put) a vCPU when unloading its MMU during VM > > destruction, as nothing in kvm_mmu_unload() accesses vCPU state beyond the > > root page/address of each MMU, i.e. can't possible need to run with the > > vCPU loaded. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > --- > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 9 +-------- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > index 045c61cc7e54..9978ed4c0917 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > @@ -12767,13 +12767,6 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type) > > return ret; > > } > > > > -static void kvm_unload_vcpu_mmu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > -{ > > - vcpu_load(vcpu); > > - kvm_mmu_unload(vcpu); > > - vcpu_put(vcpu); > > -} > > - > > static void kvm_unload_vcpu_mmus(struct kvm *kvm) > > { > > unsigned long i; > > @@ -12781,7 +12774,7 @@ static void kvm_unload_vcpu_mmus(struct kvm *kvm) > > > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) { > > kvm_clear_async_pf_completion_queue(vcpu); > > - kvm_unload_vcpu_mmu(vcpu); > > + kvm_mmu_unload(vcpu); > What about just dropping kvm_unload_vcpu_mmu() here? > kvm_mmu_unload() will be invoked again in kvm_mmu_destroy(). > > kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy() --> kvm_mmu_destroy() --> kvm_mmu_unload(). Ugh, I missed that there's yet another call to kvm_mmu_unload(). I definitely agree with dropping the first kvm_mmu_load(), but I'll do it in a follow-up patch so that all three changes are isolated (not doing the load/put, doing unload as part of vCPU destruction, doing unload only once at the end). And looking at both calls to kvm_mmu_unload(), I suspect that grabbing kvm->srcu around kvm_mmu_destroy() is unnecessary. I'll try cleaning that up as well.