Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v2 07/10] kvm/powerpc: add kvm_arch_test_clear_young()

Yu Zhao
2023-06-21T00:38:59Z

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 1:48 AM Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat May 27, 2023 at 9:44 AM AEST, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > Implement kvm_arch_test_clear_young() to support the fast path in
> > mmu_notifier_ops->test_clear_young().
> >
> > It focuses on a simple case, i.e., radix MMU sets the accessed bit in
> > KVM PTEs and VMs are not nested, where it can rely on RCU and
> > pte_xchg() to safely clear the accessed bit without taking
> > kvm->mmu_lock. Complex cases fall back to the existing slow path
> > where kvm->mmu_lock is then taken.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 8 ++++
> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_ppc.h | 1 +
> > arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.c | 6 +++
> > arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.h | 1 +
> > arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_radix.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c | 5 +++
> > 6 files changed, 80 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 14ee0dece853..75c260ea8a9e 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -883,4 +883,12 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu) {}
> > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> >
> > +#define kvm_arch_has_test_clear_young kvm_arch_has_test_clear_young
> > +static inline bool kvm_arch_has_test_clear_young(void)
> > +{
> > + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_BOOK3S_HV_POSSIBLE) &&
> > + cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_HVMODE) && cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_300) &&
> > + radix_enabled();
>
> This could probably be radix_enabled() && !kvmhv_on_pseries().

Will do. (I used !kvmhv_on_pseries() in v1 but had second thoughts on
moving kvmhv_on_pseries() into this file.)

> Although unclear why not nested hypervisor... I'd have to think about it a bit
> more. Do you have any idea what might go wrong, or just didn't have the
> time to consider it? (Not just powerpc nested but any others).

Yes, this series excludes nested KVM support on all architures. The
common reason for such a decision on powerpc and x86 (aarch64 doesn't
support nested yet) is that it's quite challenging to make the rmap, a
complex data structure that maps one PFN to multiple GFNs, lockless.
(See kvmhv_insert_nest_rmap().) It might be possible, however, the
potential ROI would be in question.

> > +}
> > +
> > #endif /* __POWERPC_KVM_HOST_H__ */
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_ppc.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_ppc.h
> > index 79a9c0bb8bba..ff1af6a7b44f 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_ppc.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_ppc.h
> > @@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ struct kvmppc_ops {
> > bool (*unmap_gfn_range)(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > bool (*age_gfn)(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > bool (*test_age_gfn)(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > + bool (*test_clear_young)(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > bool (*set_spte_gfn)(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > void (*free_memslot)(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot);
> > int (*init_vm)(struct kvm *kvm);
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.c
> > index 686d8d9eda3e..37bf40b0c4ff 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.c
> > @@ -899,6 +899,12 @@ bool kvm_test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > return kvm->arch.kvm_ops->test_age_gfn(kvm, range);
> > }
> >
> > +bool kvm_arch_test_clear_young(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > +{
> > + return !kvm->arch.kvm_ops->test_clear_young ||
> > + kvm->arch.kvm_ops->test_clear_young(kvm, range);
> > +}
> > +
> > bool kvm_set_spte_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > {
> > return kvm->arch.kvm_ops->set_spte_gfn(kvm, range);
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.h b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.h
> > index 58391b4b32ed..fa2659e21ccc 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.h
> > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ extern void kvmppc_core_flush_memslot_hv(struct kvm *kvm,
> > extern bool kvm_unmap_gfn_range_hv(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > extern bool kvm_age_gfn_hv(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > extern bool kvm_test_age_gfn_hv(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > +extern bool kvm_test_clear_young_hv(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > extern bool kvm_set_spte_gfn_hv(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> >
> > extern int kvmppc_mmu_init_pr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_radix.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_radix.c
> > index 3b65b3b11041..0a392e9a100a 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_radix.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_radix.c
> > @@ -1088,6 +1088,65 @@ bool kvm_test_age_radix(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
> > return ref;
> > }
> >
> > +bool kvm_test_clear_young_hv(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > +{
> > + bool err;
> > + gfn_t gfn = range->start;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > +
> > + err = !kvm_is_radix(kvm);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto unlock;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Case 1: This function kvmppc_switch_mmu_to_hpt()
> > + *
> > + * rcu_read_lock()
> > + * Test kvm_is_radix() kvm->arch.radix = 0
> > + * Use kvm->arch.pgtable synchronize_rcu()
> > + * rcu_read_unlock()
> > + * kvmppc_free_radix()
> > + *
> > + *
> > + * Case 2: This function kvmppc_switch_mmu_to_radix()
> > + *
> > + * kvmppc_init_vm_radix()
> > + * smp_wmb()
> > + * Test kvm_is_radix() kvm->arch.radix = 1
> > + * smp_rmb()
> > + * Use kvm->arch.pgtable
> > + */
> > + smp_rmb();
>
> Comment could stand to expand slightly on what you are solving, in
> words.

Will do.

> If you use synchronize_rcu() on both sides, you wouldn't need the
> barrier, right?

Case 2 is about memory ordering, which is orthogonal to case 1 (RCU
freeing). So we need the r/w barrier regardless.

> > + while (gfn < range->end) {
> > + pte_t *ptep;
> > + pte_t old, new;
> > + unsigned int shift;
> > +
> > + ptep = find_kvm_secondary_pte_unlocked(kvm, gfn * PAGE_SIZE, &shift);
> > + if (!ptep)
> > + goto next;
> > +
> > + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!page_count(virt_to_page(ptep)));
>
> Not really appropriate at the KVM level. mm enforces this kind of
> thing (with notifiers).

Will remove this.

> > +
> > + old = READ_ONCE(*ptep);
> > + if (!pte_present(old) || !pte_young(old))
> > + goto next;
> > +
> > + new = pte_mkold(old);
> > +
> > + if (kvm_should_clear_young(range, gfn))
> > + pte_xchg(ptep, old, new);
>
> *Probably* will work. I can't think of a reason why not at the
> moment anyway :)

My reasoning:
* It should work if we only change the dedicated A bit, i.e., not
shared for other purposes, because races are safe (the case here).
* It may not work for x86 EPT without the A bit (excluded in this
series) where accesses are trapped by the R/X bits, because races in
changing the R/X bits can be unsafe.

> > +next:
> > + gfn += shift ? BIT(shift - PAGE_SHIFT) : 1;
> > + }
> > +unlock:
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > +
> > + return err;
> > +}
> > +
> > /* Returns the number of PAGE_SIZE pages that are dirty */
> > static int kvm_radix_test_clear_dirty(struct kvm *kvm,
> > struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot, int pagenum)
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> > index 130bafdb1430..20a81ec9fde8 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> > @@ -5262,6 +5262,8 @@ int kvmppc_switch_mmu_to_hpt(struct kvm *kvm)
> > spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > kvm->arch.radix = 0;
> > spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > + /* see the comments in kvm_test_clear_young_hv() */
>
> I'm guilty of such comments at times, but it wouldn't hurt to say
> /* Finish concurrent kvm_test_clear_young_hv access to page tables */
>
> Then you know where to look for more info and you have a vague
> idea what it's for.

Will do.

> > + synchronize_rcu();
>
> > kvmppc_free_radix(kvm);
> >
> > lpcr = LPCR_VPM1;
> > @@ -5286,6 +5288,8 @@ int kvmppc_switch_mmu_to_radix(struct kvm *kvm)
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> > kvmppc_rmap_reset(kvm);
> > + /* see the comments in kvm_test_clear_young_hv() */
> > + smp_wmb();
> > /* Mutual exclusion with kvm_unmap_gfn_range etc. */
> > spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > kvm->arch.radix = 1;
> > @@ -6185,6 +6189,7 @@ static struct kvmppc_ops kvm_ops_hv = {
> > .unmap_gfn_range = kvm_unmap_gfn_range_hv,
> > .age_gfn = kvm_age_gfn_hv,
> > .test_age_gfn = kvm_test_age_gfn_hv,
> > + .test_clear_young = kvm_test_clear_young_hv,
> > .set_spte_gfn = kvm_set_spte_gfn_hv,
> > .free_memslot = kvmppc_core_free_memslot_hv,
> > .init_vm = kvmppc_core_init_vm_hv,
>
> Thanks for looking at the powerpc conversion!

Thanks for reviewing!