From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
Cc: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Remove KVM MMU write lock when accessing indirect_shadow_pages
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:28:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZH/PKMmWWgJQdcJQ@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL715WJ1rHS9ORR2ttyAw+idqbaLnOhLveUhW8f4tB9o+ZsuiQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
> > > Hmm. I agree with both points above, but below, the change seems too
> > > heavyweight. smp_wb() is a mfence(), i.e., serializing all
> > > loads/stores before the instruction. Doing that for every shadow page
> > > creation and destruction seems a lot.
> >
> > No, the smp_*b() variants are just compiler barriers on x86.
>
> hmm, it is a "lock addl" now for smp_mb(). Check this: 450cbdd0125c
> ("locking/x86: Use LOCK ADD for smp_mb() instead of MFENCE")
>
> So this means smp_mb() is not a free lunch and we need to be a little
> bit careful.
Oh, those sneaky macros. x86 #defines __smp_mb(), not the outer helper. I'll
take a closer look before posting to see if there's a way to avoid the runtime
barrier.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-07 0:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-05 0:43 [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Remove KVM MMU write lock when accessing indirect_shadow_pages Mingwei Zhang
2023-06-05 16:55 ` Jim Mattson
2023-06-05 17:17 ` Ben Gardon
2023-06-05 17:53 ` Mingwei Zhang
2023-06-05 18:27 ` Paolo Bonzini
2023-06-05 17:42 ` Mingwei Zhang
2023-06-05 18:11 ` Jim Mattson
2023-06-05 18:23 ` Mingwei Zhang
2023-06-05 18:25 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-06-06 22:46 ` Mingwei Zhang
2023-06-06 22:48 ` Mingwei Zhang
2023-06-06 23:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-06-07 0:23 ` Mingwei Zhang
2023-06-07 0:28 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2023-06-15 23:57 ` Mingwei Zhang
2023-06-26 17:38 ` Jim Mattson
2023-06-26 20:42 ` 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=ZH/PKMmWWgJQdcJQ@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=bgardon@google.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mizhang@google.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.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