From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f48.google.com (mail-wr1-f48.google.com [209.85.221.48]) (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 0E64F26D4F2 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:43:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.48 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752583389; cv=none; b=IyQ0Dw+o7tgiJL6xwINeaOGr+E2tF1nTf+JCpqAZjVDeXpVlZG4LGMgIrK5VyA+ymnNE1yFu7MflXBlqWGsVtEK6iUad3+bg6R+czIXc1xJ+NXSKvFRe1+MMB9DiqXWe5/Reh6kqst/wuOY33WWDLBqHkfSRR7nqwzJG2RKjH74= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752583389; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Bow8Whodk8OpZ1fFxs24Ye77cNnQKi5oxNsWfrNHhLc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=SQlbx4M6z9qCozAJjSd44CxE3ntp0kCM1sqx8yMPeRQzVT588WG0lye9YS8ZJVF0irue/aciezZ4DgHgFBuhZQsiCH6UGRkLvhYXPWQ6CyePSknnoZm4DhY0uVel/KjdVogeQb/d349uXX844gT1gDslVj68w/OS486SRrkR0nM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=2SCn59ee; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.48 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=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="2SCn59ee" Received: by mail-wr1-f48.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3a50956e5d3so4140439f8f.1 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:43:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1752583386; x=1753188186; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HLCrHLHQ+bmiE5FmpjfpP8oXqhj6N2L4tcvx67/KA60=; b=2SCn59eeg9Lnr0Wxi9i5E/OgTmyME3JPtTtGAxdqK09fgHWU0DPbAhOiEGttYdslw9 3QAzb/Eu0um2PEYqLMBypTP3Bpky6Jf1tDfMKlRIxmj2imetpBc0tzH4BP3HfmFNWCMz Qima4CKItHgcATyec8EXSig83XzQEoaOj0yWsMOJ74Leipm0bzRcdXDFFd5FlHTcWR7P mweXIFEoLhGsmc+E6XrEvT1weRqhBEYSSL8paWNXIfUQLTNkaHPgYLD75Lic0ycQMTDU lNEyxnJtlqyLftweYn73YjWu6RxPTVn0hLjq9rFDEkoslKUY+L5vIkkAPmHwOhPoiTxg /kcA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1752583386; x=1753188186; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=HLCrHLHQ+bmiE5FmpjfpP8oXqhj6N2L4tcvx67/KA60=; b=Mde/bzxLjrLBOX8WIj8zKN4TpTrrQkb3vazI1HRtqWV5E9TktiaMepHSFWcyfE1nNn 79iSgbf9T/4wvZ1imXhQnHrTSlcyzMu9r1wllxYCvZ/EoaMWtHTYAfNuFekFaOHMOJ54 +2vxin3VbXn+MVvc276N2fFFLKyyKWFCg5yBbosLP3R/gUe2qqECE3ygY4pChiIB1rMH 2zZI6HxUFmpuG4SiqoK9Q4c4c5YoM/WsEdtekPmTFXBbXUfnIOwvBMJKw2sLk7fr5h9S xYK2AX+ciMbb2WBKB3ELVTTNGhr1FJE/MVew06B7kvb7EIBpWKrT9DmivUBfr2/xb+mj Fa/Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUSOTBus+eac3vEq+aiz2QLYPSTnPMo4ATZkLme7Ovorqq2E3DHlrjbTsaqrRU1SfjGJmo=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzJQad2ZaepFYhia6k9DI7Q7f3OfT9eDqrIKahRUhQDQqMl2+9I GGyWv8WraHgQ05baybhBVVvx4c4H/vujYsZdSGdz9VUjCN06CdQwy+rt3FGynhK4Pw== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuY9r5UiqGL4ekpOXpzRNRNTCcu/VUAtEIF3meHV39Q4bNgQdYKQ8TAhTeEEpE Ox3kG2sr3OYFS1TXJ11R//ZCOeEt7mJIU6FOBrf/JX+p933LsLn2JiP7ubRFu+ObBy5Ml4HQAFv wRoOmTgUdjgOne+E930wo8iBQ4qTlfZP3ExIzhyHOci/927qYpA2ehG2aFuMjF+hilZ7kbSmAr8 rIeMiL4PKNct+oJ4huQTAXHulYWyHt2ILXjaVXyXIsFXODUkrVp1I0YjUW9l+FSaWzacLVGui1Q dqE0YuysEn9sapuDigvMY2QC5fzP1grbnk3Booj01xJ22usdhuS1L4TteaHAjJmmgP2xSNBRsFj QqJLKeO+OSkCS6bw9CwWErsWEi542N2eXYFGJlnlWn+SZzIldunO7YmLr9GQLdySsENYLcw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEjtd6f/7IfvZJOyn66KWqMNuxRmgibcj9Nl8nmoK9MypT8QzVR2KZI/EnuhOhULIAj3dtnmA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:985:b0:3a5:2949:6c38 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3b60a1bad1emr2110664f8f.52.1752583386084; Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (120.142.205.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.205.142.120]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4562797b956sm18158585e9.17.2025.07.15.05.43.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 12:43:01 +0000 From: Keir Fraser To: Sean Christopherson Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Eric Auger , Oliver Upton , Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , Paolo Bonzini , Li RongQing Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: Avoid synchronize_srcu() in kvm_io_bus_register_dev() Message-ID: References: <20250624092256.1105524-1-keirf@google.com> <20250624092256.1105524-4-keirf@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 11:49:34AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025, Keir Fraser wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 08:11:49AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > +Li > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025, Keir Fraser wrote: > > > > Device MMIO registration may happen quite frequently during VM boot, > > > > and the SRCU synchronization each time has a measurable effect > > > > on VM startup time. In our experiments it can account for around 25% > > > > of a VM's startup time. > > > > > > > > Replace the synchronization with a deferred free of the old kvm_io_bus > > > > structure. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Keir Fraser > > > > --- > > > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 1 + > > > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 10 ++++++++-- > > > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > > > index 3bde4fb5c6aa..28a63f1ad314 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > > > @@ -205,6 +205,7 @@ struct kvm_io_range { > > > > struct kvm_io_bus { > > > > int dev_count; > > > > int ioeventfd_count; > > > > + struct rcu_head rcu; > > > > struct kvm_io_range range[]; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > > > index eec82775c5bf..b7d4da8ba0b2 100644 > > > > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > > > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > > > > @@ -5924,6 +5924,13 @@ int kvm_io_bus_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, gpa_t addr, > > > > } > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_io_bus_read); > > > > > > > > +static void __free_bus(struct rcu_head *rcu) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct kvm_io_bus *bus = container_of(rcu, struct kvm_io_bus, rcu); > > > > + > > > > + kfree(bus); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > int kvm_io_bus_register_dev(struct kvm *kvm, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, gpa_t addr, > > > > int len, struct kvm_io_device *dev) > > > > { > > > > @@ -5962,8 +5969,7 @@ int kvm_io_bus_register_dev(struct kvm *kvm, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, gpa_t addr, > > > > memcpy(new_bus->range + i + 1, bus->range + i, > > > > (bus->dev_count - i) * sizeof(struct kvm_io_range)); > > > > rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->buses[bus_idx], new_bus); > > > > - synchronize_srcu_expedited(&kvm->srcu); > > > > - kfree(bus); > > > > + call_srcu(&kvm->srcu, &bus->rcu, __free_bus); > > > > > > I'm 99% certain this will break ABI. KVM needs to ensure all readers are > > > guaranteed to see the new device prior to returning to userspace. > > > > I'm not sure I understand this. How can userspace (or a guest VCPU) know that > > it is executing *after* the MMIO registration, except via some form of > > synchronization or other ordering of its own? For example, that PCI BAR setup > > happens as part of PCI probing happening early in device registration in the > > guest OS, strictly before the MMIO region will be accessed. Otherwise the > > access is inherently racy against the registration? > > Yes, guest software needs its own synchronization. What I am pointing out is that, > very strictly speaking, KVM relies on synchronize_srcu_expedited() to ensure that > KVM's emulation of MMIO accesses are correctly ordered with respect to the guest's > synchronization. > > It's legal, though *extremely* uncommon, for KVM to emulate large swaths of guest > code, including emulated MMIO accesses. If KVM grabs kvm->buses at the start of > an emulation block, and then uses that reference to resolve MMIO, it's theoretically > possible for KVM to mishandle an access due to using a stale bus. > > Today, such scenarios are effectively prevented by synchronize_srcu_expedited(). > Using kvm->buses outside of SRCU protection would be a bug (per KVM's locking > rules), i.e. a large emulation block must take and hold SRCU for its entire > duration. And so waiting for all SRCU readers to go away ensures that the new > kvm->buses will be observed if KVM starts a new emulation block. > > AFAIK, the only example of such emulation is x86's handle_invalid_guest_state(). > And in practice, it's probably impossible for the compiler to keep a reference to > kvm->buses across multiple invocations of kvm_emulate_instruction() while still > honoring the READ_ONCE() in __rcu_dereference_check(). > > But I don't want to simply drop KVM's synchronization, because we need a rule of > some kind to ensure correct ordering, even if it's only for documentation purposes > for 99% of cases. And because the existence of kvm_get_bus() means that it would > be possible for KVM to grab a long-term reference to kvm->buses and use it across > emulation of multiple instructions (though actually doing that would be all kinds > of crazy). > > > > I'm quite confident there are other flows that rely on the synchronization, > > > the vGIC case is simply the one that's documented. > > > > If they're in the kernel they can be fixed? If necessary I'll go audit the callers. > > Yes, I'm sure there's a solution. Thinking more about this, you make a good > point that KVM needs to order access with respect to instruction execution, not > with respect to the start of KVM_RUN. > > For all intents and purposes, holding kvm->srcu across VM-Enter/VM-Exit is > disallowed (though I don't think this is formally documented), i.e. every > architecture is guaranteed to do srcu_read_lock() after a VM-Exit, prior to > reading kvm->buses. And srcu_read_lock() contains a full smp_mb(), which ensures > KVM will get a fresh kvm->buses relative to the instruction that triggered the > exit. I've got a new patch series ready to go, but thinking more about the one-off accesses after a VM-Exit: I think VM-Exit is a barrier on all architectures? That would mean the changes to include smp_mb__after_srcu_read_lock() are unnecessary and confusing. Maybe I can drop those hunks. What do you think? Regards, Keir > > So for the common case of one-off accesses after a VM-Exit, I think we can simply > add calls to smp_mb__after_srcu_read_lock() (which is a nop on all architectures) > to formalize the dependency on reacquiring SRCU. AFAICT, that would also suffice > for arm64's use of kvm_io_bus_get_dev(). And then add an explicit barrier of some > kind in handle_invalid_guest_state()? > > Then to prevent grabbing long-term references to a bus, require kvm->slots_lock > in kvm_get_bus() (and special case the kfree() in VM destruction). > > So something like this? I think the barriers would pair with the smp_store_release() > in rcu_assign_pointer()? > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c > index 4953846cb30d..057fb4ce66b0 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c > @@ -5861,6 +5861,9 @@ static int handle_invalid_guest_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > if (kvm_test_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu)) > return 1; > > + /* Or maybe smp_mb()? Not sure what this needs to be. */ > + barrier(); > + > if (!kvm_emulate_instruction(vcpu, 0)) > return 0; > > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > index 3bde4fb5c6aa..066438b6571a 100644 > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > @@ -967,9 +967,8 @@ static inline bool kvm_dirty_log_manual_protect_and_init_set(struct kvm *kvm) > > static inline struct kvm_io_bus *kvm_get_bus(struct kvm *kvm, enum kvm_bus idx) > { > - return srcu_dereference_check(kvm->buses[idx], &kvm->srcu, > - lockdep_is_held(&kvm->slots_lock) || > - !refcount_read(&kvm->users_count)); > + return rcu_dereference_protected(kvm->buses[idx], > + lockdep_is_held(&kvm->slots_lock)); > } > > static inline struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_get_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, int i) > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > index eec82775c5bf..7b0e881351f7 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > @@ -1228,7 +1228,8 @@ static struct kvm *kvm_create_vm(unsigned long type, const char *fdname) > out_err_no_arch_destroy_vm: > WARN_ON_ONCE(!refcount_dec_and_test(&kvm->users_count)); > for (i = 0; i < KVM_NR_BUSES; i++) > - kfree(kvm_get_bus(kvm, i)); > + kfree(rcu_dereference_check(kvm->buses[i], &kvm->srcu, > + !refcount_read(&kvm->users_count)); > kvm_free_irq_routing(kvm); > out_err_no_irq_routing: > cleanup_srcu_struct(&kvm->irq_srcu); > @@ -5847,6 +5848,9 @@ int kvm_io_bus_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, gpa_t addr, > .len = len, > }; > > + /* comment goes here */ > + smp_mb__after_srcu_read_lock(); > + > bus = srcu_dereference(vcpu->kvm->buses[bus_idx], &vcpu->kvm->srcu); > if (!bus) > return -ENOMEM; > @@ -5866,6 +5870,9 @@ int kvm_io_bus_write_cookie(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, > .len = len, > }; > > + /* comment goes here */ > + smp_mb__after_srcu_read_lock(); > + > bus = srcu_dereference(vcpu->kvm->buses[bus_idx], &vcpu->kvm->srcu); > if (!bus) > return -ENOMEM; > @@ -6025,6 +6032,9 @@ struct kvm_io_device *kvm_io_bus_get_dev(struct kvm *kvm, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, > > srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu); > > + /* comment goes here */ > + smp_mb__after_srcu_read_lock(); > + > bus = srcu_dereference(kvm->buses[bus_idx], &kvm->srcu); > if (!bus) > goto out_unlock; > >