Linux KVM/arm64 development list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
To: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Cc: maz@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, bgardon@google.com,
	andrew.jones@linux.dev, dmatlack@google.com, will@kernel.org,
	shan.gavin@gmail.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, pbonzini@redhat.com, zhenyzha@redhat.com,
	shuah@kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	ajones@ventanamicro.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/7] KVM: Support dirty ring in conjunction with bitmap
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 01:13:14 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y2mtKjb8qc/vqKvQ@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1816d557-1546-f5f9-f2c3-25086c0826fa@redhat.com>

On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 08:44:52AM +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
> Frankly, I don't expect the capability to be disabled. Similar to KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING
> or KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING_ACQ_REL, it would a one-shot capability and only enablement is
> allowed. The disablement was suggested by Oliver without providing a clarify, even I dropped
> it for several times. I would like to see if there is particular reason why Oliver want
> to disable the capability.
> 
>     kvm->dirty_ring_with_bitmap = cap->args[0];
> 
> If Oliver agrees that the capability needn't to be disabled. The whole chunk of
> code can be squeezed into kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_dirty_log_ring_with_bitmap() to
> make kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap_generic() a bit clean, as I said above.

Sorry, I don't believe there is much use in disabling the cap, and
really that hunk just came from lazily matching the neigbhoring caps
when sketching out some suggestions. Oops!

> Sean and Oliver, could you help to confirm if the changes look good to you? :)
> 
>     static int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_dirty_log_ring_with_bitmap(struct kvm *kvm)

This function name is ridiculously long...

>     {
>         int i, r = 0;
> 
>         if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_RING_WITH_BITMAP) ||
>             !kvm->dirty_ring_size)
>             return -EINVAL;
> 
>         mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
> 
>         /* We only allow it to set once */
>         if (kvm->dirty_ring_with_bitmap) {
>             r = -EINVAL;
>             goto out_unlock;
>         }

I don't believe this check is strictly necessary. Something similar to
this makes sense with caps that take a numeric value (like
KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING), but this one is a one-way boolean.

> 
>         /*
>          * Avoid a race between memslot creation and enabling the ring +
>          * bitmap capability to guarantee that no memslots have been
>          * created without a bitmap.

You'll want to pick up Sean's suggestion on the comment which, again, I
drafted this in haste :-)

>          */
>         for (i = 0; i < KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM; i++) {
>             if (!kvm_memslots_empty(__kvm_memslots(kvm, i))) {
>                 r = -EINVAL;
>                 goto out_unlock;
>             }
>         }

I'd much prefer you take Sean's suggestion and just create a helper to
test that all memslots are empty. You avoid the insanely long function
name and avoid the use of a goto statement. That is to say, leave the
rest of the implementation inline in kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap_generic()

static bool kvm_are_all_memslots_empty(struct kvm *kvm)
{
	int i;

	lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->slots_lock);

	for (i = 0; i < KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM; i++) {
		if (!kvm_memslots_empty(__kvm_memslots(kvm, i)))
			return false;
	}

	return true;
}

static int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap_generic(struct kvm *kvm,
					   struct kvm_enable_cap *cap)
{
	switch (cap->cap) {

[...]

	case KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING_WITH_BITMAP: {
		int r = -EINVAL;

		if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_RING_WITH_BITMAP) ||
		    !kvm->dirty_ring_size)
		    	return r;

		mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);

		/*
		 * For simplicity, allow enabling ring+bitmap if and only if
		 * there are no memslots, e.g. to ensure all memslots allocate a
		 * bitmap after the capability is enabled.
		 */
		if (kvm_are_all_memslots_empty(kvm)) {
			kvm->dirty_ring_with_bitmap = true;
			r = 0;
		}

		mutex_unlock(&kvm->slots_lock);
		return r;
	}

Hmm?

--
Thanks,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
To: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	andrew.jones@linux.dev, ajones@ventanamicro.com,
	bgardon@google.com, dmatlack@google.com, will@kernel.org,
	suzuki.poulose@arm.com, alexandru.elisei@arm.com,
	pbonzini@redhat.com, maz@kernel.org, peterx@redhat.com,
	zhenyzha@redhat.com, shan.gavin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/7] KVM: Support dirty ring in conjunction with bitmap
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 01:13:14 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y2mtKjb8qc/vqKvQ@google.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20221108011314.BjRgjA1RHa52WTe86vQ2ZeB3UxfM36046_UnEKkCs_0@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1816d557-1546-f5f9-f2c3-25086c0826fa@redhat.com>

On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 08:44:52AM +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
> Frankly, I don't expect the capability to be disabled. Similar to KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING
> or KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING_ACQ_REL, it would a one-shot capability and only enablement is
> allowed. The disablement was suggested by Oliver without providing a clarify, even I dropped
> it for several times. I would like to see if there is particular reason why Oliver want
> to disable the capability.
> 
>     kvm->dirty_ring_with_bitmap = cap->args[0];
> 
> If Oliver agrees that the capability needn't to be disabled. The whole chunk of
> code can be squeezed into kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_dirty_log_ring_with_bitmap() to
> make kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap_generic() a bit clean, as I said above.

Sorry, I don't believe there is much use in disabling the cap, and
really that hunk just came from lazily matching the neigbhoring caps
when sketching out some suggestions. Oops!

> Sean and Oliver, could you help to confirm if the changes look good to you? :)
> 
>     static int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_dirty_log_ring_with_bitmap(struct kvm *kvm)

This function name is ridiculously long...

>     {
>         int i, r = 0;
> 
>         if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_RING_WITH_BITMAP) ||
>             !kvm->dirty_ring_size)
>             return -EINVAL;
> 
>         mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
> 
>         /* We only allow it to set once */
>         if (kvm->dirty_ring_with_bitmap) {
>             r = -EINVAL;
>             goto out_unlock;
>         }

I don't believe this check is strictly necessary. Something similar to
this makes sense with caps that take a numeric value (like
KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING), but this one is a one-way boolean.

> 
>         /*
>          * Avoid a race between memslot creation and enabling the ring +
>          * bitmap capability to guarantee that no memslots have been
>          * created without a bitmap.

You'll want to pick up Sean's suggestion on the comment which, again, I
drafted this in haste :-)

>          */
>         for (i = 0; i < KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM; i++) {
>             if (!kvm_memslots_empty(__kvm_memslots(kvm, i))) {
>                 r = -EINVAL;
>                 goto out_unlock;
>             }
>         }

I'd much prefer you take Sean's suggestion and just create a helper to
test that all memslots are empty. You avoid the insanely long function
name and avoid the use of a goto statement. That is to say, leave the
rest of the implementation inline in kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap_generic()

static bool kvm_are_all_memslots_empty(struct kvm *kvm)
{
	int i;

	lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->slots_lock);

	for (i = 0; i < KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM; i++) {
		if (!kvm_memslots_empty(__kvm_memslots(kvm, i)))
			return false;
	}

	return true;
}

static int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap_generic(struct kvm *kvm,
					   struct kvm_enable_cap *cap)
{
	switch (cap->cap) {

[...]

	case KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING_WITH_BITMAP: {
		int r = -EINVAL;

		if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_RING_WITH_BITMAP) ||
		    !kvm->dirty_ring_size)
		    	return r;

		mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);

		/*
		 * For simplicity, allow enabling ring+bitmap if and only if
		 * there are no memslots, e.g. to ensure all memslots allocate a
		 * bitmap after the capability is enabled.
		 */
		if (kvm_are_all_memslots_empty(kvm)) {
			kvm->dirty_ring_with_bitmap = true;
			r = 0;
		}

		mutex_unlock(&kvm->slots_lock);
		return r;
	}

Hmm?

--
Thanks,
Oliver

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-08  1:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-04 23:40 [PATCH v8 0/7] KVM: arm64: Enable ring-based dirty memory tracking Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40 ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40 ` [PATCH v8 1/7] KVM: x86: Introduce KVM_REQ_DIRTY_RING_SOFT_FULL Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40   ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40 ` [PATCH v8 2/7] KVM: Move declaration of kvm_cpu_dirty_log_size() to kvm_dirty_ring.h Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40   ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40 ` [PATCH v8 3/7] KVM: Support dirty ring in conjunction with bitmap Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40   ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-06 15:43   ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-06 15:43     ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-06 16:22     ` Peter Xu
2022-11-06 16:22       ` Peter Xu
2022-11-06 20:12       ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-06 20:12         ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-06 21:06         ` Peter Xu
2022-11-06 21:06           ` Peter Xu
2022-11-06 21:23           ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-06 21:23             ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-07  9:38             ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-07  9:38               ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-07 14:29               ` Peter Xu
2022-11-07 14:29                 ` Peter Xu
2022-11-07  9:21           ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-07  9:21             ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-07 14:59             ` Peter Xu
2022-11-07 14:59               ` Peter Xu
2022-11-07 15:30               ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-07 15:30                 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-06 21:40     ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-06 21:40       ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-07  9:45       ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-07  9:45         ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-07 10:45   ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-07 10:45     ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-07 11:33     ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-07 11:33       ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-07 23:53       ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-07 23:53         ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-07 16:05   ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-07 16:05     ` Sean Christopherson
2022-11-08  0:44     ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-08  0:44       ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-08  1:13       ` Oliver Upton [this message]
2022-11-08  1:13         ` Oliver Upton
2022-11-08  3:30         ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-08  3:30           ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40 ` [PATCH v8 4/7] KVM: arm64: Enable ring-based dirty memory tracking Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40   ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-06 15:50   ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-06 15:50     ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-06 21:46     ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-06 21:46       ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-07  9:47       ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-07  9:47         ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-07 10:47         ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-07 10:47           ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40 ` [PATCH v8 5/7] KVM: selftests: Use host page size to map ring buffer in dirty_log_test Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40   ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40 ` [PATCH v8 6/7] KVM: selftests: Clear dirty ring states between two modes " Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40   ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40 ` [PATCH v8 7/7] KVM: selftests: Automate choosing dirty ring size " Gavin Shan
2022-11-04 23:40   ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-06 16:08 ` [PATCH v8 0/7] KVM: arm64: Enable ring-based dirty memory tracking Marc Zyngier
2022-11-06 16:08   ` Marc Zyngier
2022-11-06 21:50   ` Gavin Shan
2022-11-06 21:50     ` Gavin Shan

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=Y2mtKjb8qc/vqKvQ@google.com \
    --to=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
    --cc=ajones@ventanamicro.com \
    --cc=andrew.jones@linux.dev \
    --cc=bgardon@google.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dmatlack@google.com \
    --cc=gshan@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=shan.gavin@gmail.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=zhenyzha@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