Re: [PATCH v6 05/11] x86/virt/tdx: Handle concurrent callers in tdx_pamt_get/put()

["Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>]

Thanks for the review!

On Wed, 2026-07-08 at 14:46 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 07:35:09PM -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > tdx_pamt_get()/tdx_pamt_put() unconditionally add or remove Dynamic PAMT
> > backing for the 2MB region covering the passed pfn. However, multiple
> > callers can concurrently operate on 4KB pages that fall within the same
> > 2MB region. When this happens only one Dynamic PAMT page pair needs to be
> What "this" stands for is not clear and a comma is missing after "happens".

Really this is not clear? The previous sentence is all about a senario being
possible "multiple callers can concurrently operate on 4KB pages that fall
within the same 2MB region". So I thought this would be clear.

I could say "When that scenario happens..."? But trying to keep the word count
down.

> 
> > installed to cover the 2MB range. And when one page is freed, the Dynamic
> > PAMT backing cannot be freed until all pages in the range are no longer in
> > use. Make the helpers handle these races internally.
> > 
> > Use the per-2MB refcounts from previous changes to track how many 4KB
> > pages are in use within each region. Gate the actual Dynamic PAMT add and
> > remove on refcount transitions (0->1 and 1->0). Serialize the refcount
> > check and SEAMCALL with a global spinlock so the read-decide-act sequence
> > is atomic. This also avoids TDX module BUSY errors, as Dynamic PAMT add
> > and remove SEAMCALLs take an internal TDX module locks at 2MB granularity,
> "an internal TDX module locks" --> "internal TDX module locks"?

Yep, thanks.

> 
> > so simultaneous attempts on the same region would conflict.
> How about:
> "This also avoids TDX module BUSY errors, as Dynamic PAMT add
> and remove SEAMCALLs take internal TDX module locks for the 2MB ranges of
> the specified PFN and the PAMT page pair PFNs, so simultaneous attempts on
> the same 2MB ranges of the PFNs would conflict." ?

Hmm, yea.
> 
> 
> > The lock is global and heavyweight. Use simple conditional logic to keep
> > correctness obvious. This will be optimized in a later change.
> > 
> > Assisted-by: GitHub Copilot:claude-opus-4-6 Claude:claude-opus-4-7
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > Co-developed-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
> > ---
> > v6:
> >  - Split from "x86/virt/tdx: Add tdx_alloc/free_control_page() helpers"
> >  - Return 0 instead of ret to be clearer (Binbin)
> >  - Clarify log (Nikolay)
> >  - Justify why the patch is not optimized in response to comments by
> >    (Nikolay)
> >  - Move tdx_find_pamt_refcount() to faciliate patch re-order
> >  - Adjustments from dropping error helper patches
> >  - Log tweaks
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c
> > index 6658a6be6697c..50333eb96efa6 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c
> > @@ -2043,10 +2043,14 @@ static u64 tdh_phymem_pamt_remove(kvm_pfn_t pfn, struct page **pamt_pages)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -/* Allocate PAMT memory for the given page */
> > +/* Serializes adding/removing PAMT memory */
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(pamt_lock);
> > +
> > +/* Bump PAMT refcount for the given page and allocate PAMT memory if needed */
> How about
> "Bump the refcount of the PAMT page pair for the given PFN and add the PAMT
> page pair on the first reference." ?

I think I see what you are getting at. How about this instead:
Bump PAMT refcount for the given pfn and allocate PAMT backing if needed


> 
> >  static int tdx_pamt_get(kvm_pfn_t pfn)
> >  {
> >  	struct page *pamt_pages[TDX_DPAMT_ENTRY_PAGE_CNT];
> > +	atomic_t *pamt_refcount;
> >  	u64 tdx_status;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> > @@ -2057,10 +2061,26 @@ static int tdx_pamt_get(kvm_pfn_t pfn)
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > -	tdx_status = tdh_phymem_pamt_add(pfn, pamt_pages);
> > -	if (tdx_status != TDX_SUCCESS) {
> > -		ret = -EIO;
> > -		goto out_free;
> > +	pamt_refcount = tdx_find_pamt_refcount(pfn);
> > +
> > +	scoped_guard(spinlock, &pamt_lock) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If the pamt page is already added (i.e. refcount >= 1),
> > +		 * then just increment the refcount.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (atomic_read(pamt_refcount)) {
> > +			atomic_inc(pamt_refcount);
> > +			goto out_free;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		/* Try to add the pamt page and take the refcount 0->1. */
> > +		tdx_status = tdh_phymem_pamt_add(pfn, pamt_pages);
> > +		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(tdx_status != TDX_SUCCESS)) {
> > +			ret = -EIO;
> > +			goto out_free;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		atomic_set(pamt_refcount, 1);
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -2069,26 +2089,46 @@ static int tdx_pamt_get(kvm_pfn_t pfn)
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > -/* Free PAMT memory for the given page */
> > +/*
> > + * Drop PAMT refcount for the given page and free PAMT memory if it is no
> > + * longer needed.
> How about:
> "Drop the refcount of the PAMT page pair for the given PFN, and remove the
> PAMT page pair if it is no longer needed." ?

Matching the above:

Drop PAMT refcount for the given pfn and free PAMT backing if needed

> 
> > + */
> >  static void tdx_pamt_put(kvm_pfn_t pfn)
> >  {
> >  	struct page *pamt_pages[TDX_DPAMT_ENTRY_PAGE_CNT] = {};
> > +	atomic_t *pamt_refcount;
> >  	u64 tdx_status;
> >  
> >  	if (!tdx_supports_dynamic_pamt(&tdx_sysinfo))
> >  		return;
> >  
> > -	tdx_status = tdh_phymem_pamt_remove(pfn, pamt_pages);
> > +	pamt_refcount = tdx_find_pamt_refcount(pfn);
> >  
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Don't free pamt_pages as it could hold garbage when
> > -	 * tdh_phymem_pamt_remove() fails.  Don't panic/BUG_ON(), as
> > -	 * there is no risk of data corruption, but do yell loudly as
> > -	 * failure indicates a kernel bug, memory is being leaked, and
> > -	 * the dangling PAMT entry may cause future operations to fail.
> > -	 */
> > -	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(tdx_status != TDX_SUCCESS))
> > -		return;
> > +	scoped_guard(spinlock, &pamt_lock) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If the there are more than 1 references on the pamt page,
> s/If the/If
> s/references/reference

Yep, thanks.

> 
> > +		 * don't remove it yet. Just decrement the refcount.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (atomic_read(pamt_refcount) > 1) {
> > +			atomic_dec(pamt_refcount);
> > +			return;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		/* Try to remove the pamt page and take the refcount 1->0. */
> > +		tdx_status = tdh_phymem_pamt_remove(pfn, pamt_pages);
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Don't free pamt_pages as it could hold garbage when
> > +		 * tdh_phymem_pamt_remove() fails.  Don't panic/BUG_ON(), as
> > +		 * there is no risk of data corruption, but do yell loudly as
> > +		 * failure indicates a kernel bug, memory is being leaked, and
> > +		 * the dangling PAMT entry may cause future operations to fail.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(tdx_status != TDX_SUCCESS))
> > +			return;
> > +
> > +		atomic_set(pamt_refcount, 0);
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	free_pamt_array(pamt_pages);
> >  }
> 
> Another nit:
> How about renaming the title from
> "Handle concurrent callers in tdx_pamt_get/put()" to
> "Handle concurrent calls to tdx_pamt_get/put()" ?

I'm not seeing a benefit. Just because it's shorter?

> 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>