Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Only allocate shadowed translation cache for sp->role.level <= KVM_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL

Hou Wenlong
2024-05-09T02:49:06Z

On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:55:02PM +0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2024, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> > Only the indirect SP with sp->role.level <= KVM_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL might
> > have leaf gptes, so allocation of shadowed translation cache is needed
> > only for it. Additionally, use sp->shadowed_translation to determine
> > whether to use the information in shadowed translation cache or not.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@antgroup.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > index fc3b59b59ee1..8be987d0f05e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > @@ -716,12 +716,12 @@ static bool sp_has_gptes(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp);
> >
> > static gfn_t kvm_mmu_page_get_gfn(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp, int index)
> > {
> > + if (sp->shadowed_translation)
> > + return sp->shadowed_translation[index] >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > +
> > if (sp->role.passthrough)
> > return sp->gfn;
> >
> > - if (!sp->role.direct)
> > - return sp->shadowed_translation[index] >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> Why change the order? Either the order doesn't matter, in which case go for the
> smallest diff, or the order does matter, in which case this warrants an explanation
> in the changelog (or perhaps even a separate patch, but that's likely overkill).
>
I believe the order doesn't matter, and the initial purpose is to keep
the code of the 2 cases, which doesn't have shadowed_translation, close
together. I'll drop the order change to keep the smallest diff.

> > -
> > return sp->gfn + (index << ((sp->role.level - 1) * SPTE_LEVEL_BITS));
> > }
> >
> > @@ -733,7 +733,7 @@ static gfn_t kvm_mmu_page_get_gfn(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp, int index)
> > */
> > static u32 kvm_mmu_page_get_access(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp, int index)
>
> Can you also extend the WARN in FNAME(sync_spte)()? Partly to help communicate
> to future readers that sync_spte() operates on leaf GPTEs, and also to help make
> it somewhat obvious that this patch doesn't break shadow_mmu_get_sp_for_split()
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
> index 7a87097cb45b..89b5d73e9e3c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
> @@ -911,7 +911,7 @@ static int FNAME(sync_spte)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp, int
> gpa_t pte_gpa;
> gfn_t gfn;
>
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!sp->spt[i]))
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!sp->spt[i] || !sp->shadowed_translation))
> return 0;
>
> first_pte_gpa = FNAME(get_level1_sp_gpa)(sp);
>
Sure, I'll add this in the v2.

Thanks!

> > {
> > - if (sp_has_gptes(sp))
> > + if (sp->shadowed_translation)
> > return sp->shadowed_translation[index] & ACC_ALL;
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -754,7 +754,7 @@ static u32 kvm_mmu_page_get_access(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp, int index)
> > static void kvm_mmu_page_set_translation(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp, int index,
> > gfn_t gfn, unsigned int access)
> > {
> > - if (sp_has_gptes(sp)) {
> > + if (sp->shadowed_translation) {
> > sp->shadowed_translation[index] = (gfn << PAGE_SHIFT) | access;
> > return;
> > }
> > @@ -1697,7 +1697,7 @@ static void kvm_mmu_free_shadow_page(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
> > hlist_del(&sp->hash_link);
> > list_del(&sp->link);
> > free_page((unsigned long)sp->spt);
> > - if (!sp->role.direct)
> > + if (sp->shadowed_translation)
> > free_page((unsigned long)sp->shadowed_translation);
>
> Just drop the manual check, free_page() already handles the NULL/0 case.
>
> > kmem_cache_free(mmu_page_header_cache, sp);
> > }
> > @@ -1850,6 +1850,17 @@ static bool kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
> > static void kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page(struct kvm *kvm,
> > struct list_head *invalid_list);
> >
> > +static bool sp_might_have_leaf_gptes(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>
> Hmm, I think I'd prefer to forego the helper entirely, as this really is intended
> to be used only when allocating the shadow page. That way we avoid having to try
> and clarify exactly what "might" means in this context, as well as potential future
> goofs, e.g. if someone had the clever idea to check sp->shadowed_translation.
>
> Oof, yeah, definitely omit the helper. It took me a minute to fully appreciate
> the difference between "leaf gptes" and "gptes" as it relates to write-protecting
> gfns.
>
> > +{
> > + if (sp->role.direct)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (sp->role.level > KVM_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL)
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + return true;
> > +}
> > +
> > static bool sp_has_gptes(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
> > {
> > if (sp->role.direct)
> > @@ -2199,7 +2210,8 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_alloc_shadow_page(struct kvm *kvm,
> >
> > sp = kvm_mmu_memory_cache_alloc(caches->page_header_cache);
> > sp->spt = kvm_mmu_memory_cache_alloc(caches->shadow_page_cache);
> > - if (!role.direct)
> > + sp->role = role;
> > + if (sp_might_have_leaf_gptes(sp))
>
> And then this becomes:
>
> if (!role.direct && role.level <= KVM_MAX_HUGEPAGE_LEVEL)
>
> > sp->shadowed_translation = kvm_mmu_memory_cache_alloc(caches->shadowed_info_cache);
> >
> > set_page_private(virt_to_page(sp->spt), (unsigned long)sp);
> > @@ -2216,7 +2228,6 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_alloc_shadow_page(struct kvm *kvm,
> > kvm_account_mmu_page(kvm, sp);
> >
> > sp->gfn = gfn;
> > - sp->role = role;
>
> And this code doesn't need to move.
>
> > hlist_add_head(&sp->hash_link, sp_list);
> > if (sp_has_gptes(sp))
> > account_shadowed(kvm, sp);
> > --
> > 2.31.1
> >