From: Leonardo Bras <leo.bras@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leo.bras@arm.com>,
Oliver Upton <oupton@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Introduce S2 walker SKIP return options
Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 15:35:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <agx1J1tQFn0cdtBf@devkitleo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <agxifbKzGcYQivBz@willie-the-truck>
On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 02:15:41PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 01:56:48PM +0100, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 01:43:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > I was wondering along similar lines, but maybe it would be useful just
> > > > > to pass a maximum level to the walker logic? That feels like the most
> > > > > general case without complicating the existing logic.
> > > >
> > > > This proposal seems simpler for me to understand, and indeed looks like a
> > > > better solution than what I have proposed, taking care of the
> > > > 'already split' case with better performance, as it don't even walk a
> > > > single level-3 entry.
> > > >
> > > > On the 'splitting' case, it also works flawlessly if the memory is given in
> > > > level-2 blocks. There is only one case that I would like to address here:
> > > >
> > > > - Memory given in level-1 blocks (say 1GB)
> > > > - Walker flag says 'walk down to level-2 only'
> > > > - Split Walker on level-1 will break page down to (up to) level-3 entries.
> > > > - Walker will continue to be called on level-2 entries, even though it's
> > > > not necessary.
> > >
> > > If you're only visiting leaves, why would it be called on the level-2
> > > table entries?
> > >
> >
> > Because once the leaf is turned into a table by the splitting walker, it
> > gets reloaded and walked. This is an excerpt of __kvm_pgtable_visit():
>
> Sorry, I was musing about the semantics after adding something to limit
> the maximum level. I don't dispute what the current code would do.
>
> > Example:
> > - Split this level-1 leave:
> > - Walker creates the whole structure up to given level (currently 3)
> > - Walker returns, gets reloaded, table detected, go down on that one
> > - Level 2 entries walked (which is unnecessary)
> >
> > Please let me know if I am misunderstanding something.
>
> I just don't grok why this would happen if we limited the maximum level
> to '2' _and_ said we only wanted to visit the leaf entries. In that
> case, I wouldn't expect to descend into any of the L2 table entries
> (because that would imply going beyond level 2) and I wouldn't expect to
> be called for the table entries either (because we're only interested in
> leaves).
Agree, if we specify to skip level-3 entries, it would only walk up to
level-2 entries, but take above example in detail:
- Split these level-1 leaves, up to level-3 leaves (regular)
- INFO: kvm_pgtable_walk will call walker:
- only up to level-2 entries (skip level-3)
- only on leaf entries
- Walk first level-1 leaf, calls walker
- walker will split the level-1 leaf in level-3 leaves
- walker return from that first level-1 leaf
- level-1 leaf is reloaded as a table
- level-2 entries of that table are also walked (unnecessary)
- on each of the level-2 table entries, level-3 entries are skipped
To avoid the unecessary walk of the level-2 entries above, we would need to
specify 'skip level-2' that could be an issue if we have a mix of level-1
and level-2 leaves, as the level-2 leaves in that case would not be split.
That's why I suggest something like "skip recently created table" as a flag
as well, so we can guarantee no newly created table gets walked
unecessarily.
Please help me if I am missing something important.
Thanks!
Leo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-19 14:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-15 19:59 [RFC PATCH 0/2] Optimize S2 page splitting Leonardo Bras
2026-05-15 19:59 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Introduce S2 walker SKIP return options Leonardo Bras
2026-05-18 7:22 ` Oliver Upton
2026-05-18 8:52 ` Will Deacon
2026-05-18 13:45 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-05-19 12:43 ` Will Deacon
2026-05-19 12:56 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-05-19 13:15 ` Will Deacon
2026-05-19 14:35 ` Leonardo Bras [this message]
2026-05-19 21:21 ` Oliver Upton
2026-05-15 19:59 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: Improve splitting performance by using SKIP return values Leonardo Bras
2026-05-16 9:15 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] Optimize S2 page splitting Marc Zyngier
2026-05-18 14:09 ` Leonardo Bras
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=agx1J1tQFn0cdtBf@devkitleo \
--to=leo.bras@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oupton@kernel.org \
--cc=rananta@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=tabba@google.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--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