From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CA2C433E0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:41:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11BB72080D for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:41:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 11BB72080D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=us.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC9R30cwNzDrPp for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 21:41:51 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=us.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=linuxram@us.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=us.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BC9NV2BsJzDrMy for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 21:39:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06NBV5IC006580; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 07:39:30 -0400 Received: from ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (62.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.98]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32f6wbw4kt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 07:39:29 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06NBVUiC007238; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:39:28 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma03ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 32brq7p48v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:39:28 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 06NBdPM223396722 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:39:25 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC7DA404D; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:39:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E04DA4053; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:39:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc0525413822.ibm.com (unknown [9.211.150.76]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:39:21 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 04:39:18 -0700 From: Ram Pai To: Bharata B Rao Subject: Re: [v4 3/5] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: in H_SVM_INIT_DONE, migrate remaining normal-GFNs to secure-GFNs. Message-ID: <20200723113918.GB5493@oc0525413822.ibm.com> References: <1594972827-13928-1-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <1594972827-13928-4-git-send-email-linuxram@us.ibm.com> <20200723061037.GA1082478@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200723061037.GA1082478@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-23_03:2020-07-23, 2020-07-23 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=875 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007230083 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Ram Pai Cc: ldufour@linux.ibm.com, cclaudio@linux.ibm.com, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, sathnaga@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, bauerman@linux.ibm.com, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 11:40:37AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 01:00:25AM -0700, Ram Pai wrote: > > > > +int kvmppc_uv_migrate_mem_slot(struct kvm *kvm, > > + const struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot) > > Don't see any callers for this outside of this file, so why not static? > > > +{ > > + unsigned long gfn = memslot->base_gfn; > > + struct vm_area_struct *vma; > > + unsigned long start, end; > > + int ret = 0; > > + > > + while (kvmppc_next_nontransitioned_gfn(memslot, kvm, &gfn)) { > > So you checked the state of gfn under uvmem_lock above, but release > it too. > > > + > > + mmap_read_lock(kvm->mm); > > + start = gfn_to_hva(kvm, gfn); > > + if (kvm_is_error_hva(start)) { > > + ret = H_STATE; > > + goto next; > > + } > > + > > + end = start + (1UL << PAGE_SHIFT); > > + vma = find_vma_intersection(kvm->mm, start, end); > > + if (!vma || vma->vm_start > start || vma->vm_end < end) { > > + ret = H_STATE; > > + goto next; > > + } > > + > > + mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.uvmem_lock); > > + ret = kvmppc_svm_migrate_page(vma, start, end, > > + (gfn << PAGE_SHIFT), kvm, PAGE_SHIFT, false); > > What is the guarantee that the gfn is in the same earlier state when you do > do migration here? Are you worried about the case, where someother thread will sneak-in and migrate the GFN, and this migration request will become a duplicate one? That is theortically possible, though practically improbable. This transition is attempted only when there is one vcpu active in the VM. However, may be, we should not bake-in that assumption in this code. Will remove that assumption. RP