From: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
To: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 12/12] KVM: arm64: Use TLBI range-based intructions for unmap
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:06:57 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bd054dfa-915d-e231-b480-06401622ebde@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHc60xaygC8tX8yFnoFM9YqWg8iE6r5d+kugGwO5KZxDtG3rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Raghavendra,
On 7/26/23 01:23, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> Hi Shaoqin,
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 7:32 PM Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/25/23 00:47, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 2:35 AM Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Raghavendra,
>>>>
>>>> On 7/22/23 10:22, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
>>>>> The current implementation of the stage-2 unmap walker traverses
>>>>> the given range and, as a part of break-before-make, performs
>>>>> TLB invalidations with a DSB for every PTE. A multitude of this
>>>>> combination could cause a performance bottleneck on some systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence, if the system supports FEAT_TLBIRANGE, defer the TLB
>>>>> invalidations until the entire walk is finished, and then
>>>>> use range-based instructions to invalidate the TLBs in one go.
>>>>> Condition deferred TLB invalidation on the system supporting FWB,
>>>>> as the optimization is entirely pointless when the unmap walker
>>>>> needs to perform CMOs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rename stage2_put_pte() to stage2_unmap_put_pte() as the function
>>>>> now serves the stage-2 unmap walker specifically, rather than
>>>>> acting generic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
>>>>> index 5ef098af1736..cf88933a2ea0 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
>>>>> @@ -831,16 +831,54 @@ static void stage2_make_pte(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx, kvm_pte_t n
>>>>> smp_store_release(ctx->ptep, new);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> -static void stage2_put_pte(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx, struct kvm_s2_mmu *mmu,
>>>>> - struct kvm_pgtable_mm_ops *mm_ops)
>>>>> +struct stage2_unmap_data {
>>>>> + struct kvm_pgtable *pgt;
>>>>> + bool defer_tlb_flush_init;
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static bool __stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * If FEAT_TLBIRANGE is implemented, defer the individual
>>>>> + * TLB invalidations until the entire walk is finished, and
>>>>> + * then use the range-based TLBI instructions to do the
>>>>> + * invalidations. Condition deferred TLB invalidation on the
>>>>> + * system supporting FWB, as the optimization is entirely
>>>>> + * pointless when the unmap walker needs to perform CMOs.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + return system_supports_tlb_range() && stage2_has_fwb(pgt);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static bool stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush(struct stage2_unmap_data *unmap_data)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + bool defer_tlb_flush = __stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush(unmap_data->pgt);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Since __stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush() is based on alternative
>>>>> + * patching and the TLBIs' operations behavior depend on this,
>>>>> + * track if there's any change in the state during the unmap sequence.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + WARN_ON(unmap_data->defer_tlb_flush_init != defer_tlb_flush);
>>>>> + return defer_tlb_flush;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void stage2_unmap_put_pte(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx,
>>>>> + struct kvm_s2_mmu *mmu,
>>>>> + struct kvm_pgtable_mm_ops *mm_ops)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + struct stage2_unmap_data *unmap_data = ctx->arg;
>>>>> +
>>>>> /*
>>>>> - * Clear the existing PTE, and perform break-before-make with
>>>>> - * TLB maintenance if it was valid.
>>>>> + * Clear the existing PTE, and perform break-before-make if it was
>>>>> + * valid. Depending on the system support, the TLB maintenance for
>>>>> + * the same can be deferred until the entire unmap is completed.
>>>>> */
>>>>> if (kvm_pte_valid(ctx->old)) {
>>>>> kvm_clear_pte(ctx->ptep);
>>>>> - kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa, mmu, ctx->addr, ctx->level);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush(unmap_data))
>>>> Why not directly check (unmap_data->defer_tlb_flush_init) here?
>>>>
>>> (Re-sending the reply as the previous one was formatted as HTML and
>>> was blocked by many lists)
>>>
>>> No particular reason per say, but I was just going with the logic of
>>> determining if we need to defer the flush and the WARN_ON() parts
>>> separate.
>>> Any advantage if we directly check in stage2_unmap_put_pte() that I
>>> missed or is this purely for readability?
>>
>> Hi Raghavendra,
>>
>> I just wondering if before the stage2 walk, we want to defer the tlb
>> flush, but if when walk the stage2, the stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush()
>> trigger the WARN_ON() and return don't defer the tlb flush, it will
>> flush the ctx->addr's tlb. But before the WARN_ON() triggered, these tlb
>> will not be flushed, since when walk stage2 done in the
>> kvm_pgtable_stage2_unmap(), the stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush() still
>> trigger the WARN_ON() and don't use the tlb range-based flush. Thus some
>> of the tlb are not flushed.
>>
> Excellent point!
>> If we directly check the (unmap_data->defer_tlb_flush_init), this isn't
>> change during walking the stage2, so the WARN_ON() should only trigger
>> in kvm_pgtable_stage2_unmap()->stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush().
>>
>> I'm not sure if it's right since I just think once we set up use the
>> TLBI range-based flush, the result of the
>> __stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush() shouldn't change. Otherwise there must
>> have some stale TLB entry.
>>
> One solution that I can think of is, if the code triggers the
> WARN_ON(), we flush the entire VM's TLB using
> kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid) after the entire walk is finished.
> In this special/rare situation, it'll be a little expensive, but we
> will at least be correct, leaving no stale TLBs behind. WDYT?
>
I think it will be good to have this handling.
Thanks,
Shaoqin
> Thank you.
> Raghavendra
>> Thanks,
>> Shaoqin
>>
>>>
>>>>> + kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa, mmu,
>>>>> + ctx->addr, ctx->level);
>>>> Small indent hint. The ctx->addr can align with __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa.
>>>>
>>> Ah, yes. I'll adjust this if I send out a v8.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>> Raghavendra
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Shaoqin
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> mm_ops->put_page(ctx->ptep);
>>>>> @@ -1070,7 +1108,8 @@ int kvm_pgtable_stage2_set_owner(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr, u64 size,
>>>>> static int stage2_unmap_walker(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx,
>>>>> enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags visit)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - struct kvm_pgtable *pgt = ctx->arg;
>>>>> + struct stage2_unmap_data *unmap_data = ctx->arg;
>>>>> + struct kvm_pgtable *pgt = unmap_data->pgt;
>>>>> struct kvm_s2_mmu *mmu = pgt->mmu;
>>>>> struct kvm_pgtable_mm_ops *mm_ops = ctx->mm_ops;
>>>>> kvm_pte_t *childp = NULL;
>>>>> @@ -1098,7 +1137,7 @@ static int stage2_unmap_walker(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx,
>>>>> * block entry and rely on the remaining portions being faulted
>>>>> * back lazily.
>>>>> */
>>>>> - stage2_put_pte(ctx, mmu, mm_ops);
>>>>> + stage2_unmap_put_pte(ctx, mmu, mm_ops);
>>>>>
>>>>> if (need_flush && mm_ops->dcache_clean_inval_poc)
>>>>> mm_ops->dcache_clean_inval_poc(kvm_pte_follow(ctx->old, mm_ops),
>>>>> @@ -1112,13 +1151,23 @@ static int stage2_unmap_walker(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx,
>>>>>
>>>>> int kvm_pgtable_stage2_unmap(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr, u64 size)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>> + struct stage2_unmap_data unmap_data = {
>>>>> + .pgt = pgt,
>>>>> + .defer_tlb_flush_init = __stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush(pgt),
>>>>> + };
>>>>> struct kvm_pgtable_walker walker = {
>>>>> .cb = stage2_unmap_walker,
>>>>> - .arg = pgt,
>>>>> + .arg = &unmap_data,
>>>>> .flags = KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_LEAF | KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_TABLE_POST,
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> - return kvm_pgtable_walk(pgt, addr, size, &walker);
>>>>> + ret = kvm_pgtable_walk(pgt, addr, size, &walker);
>>>>> + if (stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush(&unmap_data))
>>>>> + /* Perform the deferred TLB invalidations */
>>>>> + kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range(pgt->mmu, addr, size);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> struct stage2_attr_data {
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Shaoqin
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Shaoqin
>>
>
--
Shaoqin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-26 4:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-22 2:22 [PATCH v7 00/12] KVM: arm64: Add support for FEAT_TLBIRANGE Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 01/12] KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-27 10:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 17:21 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 21:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-01 0:42 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 15:54 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 16:10 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-02 23:30 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 02/12] KVM: arm64: Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-24 9:13 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-27 10:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 21:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-02 15:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:28 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-04 18:19 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-08 15:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-08 16:19 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-08 16:43 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-08 16:46 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 03/12] KVM: Remove CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_TLB_FLUSH_ALL Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-24 9:13 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 04/12] KVM: Allow range-based TLB invalidation from common code Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 21:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-01 0:39 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-07 4:06 ` Anup Patel
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 05/12] KVM: Move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() to " Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-27 10:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 17:30 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-07 4:06 ` Anup Patel
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 06/12] arm64: tlb: Refactor the core flush algorithm of __flush_tlb_range Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-27 10:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 17:36 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 15:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:31 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 07/12] KVM: arm64: Implement __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range() Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-24 9:21 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-27 12:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 17:45 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 08/12] KVM: arm64: Define kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range() Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-27 12:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 13:01 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 18:01 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 09/12] KVM: arm64: Implement kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range() Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-27 12:48 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 10/12] KVM: arm64: Flush only the memslot after write-protect Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 11/12] KVM: arm64: Invalidate the table entries upon a range Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 12/12] KVM: arm64: Use TLBI range-based intructions for unmap Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-24 9:34 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-24 16:47 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-25 2:32 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-25 17:23 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-26 4:06 ` Shaoqin Huang [this message]
2023-07-27 13:12 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 18:26 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:33 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 21:57 ` [PATCH v7 00/12] KVM: arm64: Add support for FEAT_TLBIRANGE 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=bd054dfa-915d-e231-b480-06401622ebde@redhat.com \
--to=shahuang@redhat.com \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=atishp@atishpatra.org \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=coltonlewis@google.com \
--cc=dmatlack@google.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jingzhangos@google.com \
--cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rananta@google.com \
--cc=reijiw@google.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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