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 Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62A6EC4332F for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:54:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=YwXN9Ix2; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4SJzs75yzyz3cTc for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2023 03:54:51 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=YwXN9Ix2; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=google.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::634; helo=mail-pl1-x634.google.com; envelope-from=dmatlack@google.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mail-pl1-x634.google.com (mail-pl1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4SJzr71bl3z3c8r for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2023 03:53:57 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1cc316ccc38so11015545ad.1 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:53:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1698684835; x=1699289635; darn=lists.ozlabs.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=g2Qy05fJV7O/T/e2KrUkQigx6UtJsi8HFmlOQKzP0uU=; b=YwXN9Ix2w2O77AoQVztotyxNuitT4PisQmL3dh8zNxBz+Oj5wFp4qPB+7LyhhWnixX FITjkavM2xGxHmV08dRjXpGzY+zjQ1NzVd7cOFA9WZElv+Or5KHZcTPkG+nnI2InDAwI GurdK3QcU9FUB/0E9xLtGnL5zvpXLhfBGJ6ZkLFhd80qdnsBbjh/tFKexPQlk0r9tIAR Sjfm2tseffpJulCQXEusjm3MEy3/OskmEAFQuUX+Ghk98b2d59ASsb4ctzyu2v0pIPeU 5HamFfEuVG7FoY+5LheF6uQVEZBScgP0IzaKZrh8TTOWWwNE72NTsNmqoZ99UXCOi9uV vrMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1698684835; x=1699289635; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=g2Qy05fJV7O/T/e2KrUkQigx6UtJsi8HFmlOQKzP0uU=; b=CMAvFYT9zO46EbHnPz8rqlYFYrR+mw8FclhzdPmistuXQb1l5E+EL+SvRoTLuQZLZ8 rzeavEKEvIIcymsTU9fahkJeG5qkBlafh0j3MZi5lu0wk8v155URGJMBNa/iGPjCulyo I+Z1UfOVHFh0ODzbxNkUrWXOVhUIYlI3zfkX5fAfriODz7/cEp8CHoYusB3l2TKiS6UI QJ/T/Y87D3ckhoskPFMxDNIH/jKfqOVhX66D+MFWygb6PLs0hju+JHRqI/OlDrbHBaOM OYZGofjWeU7ayLN492bDszJhwp8iK/BVsFIKKfnhCLtg69352N4DEwf/YUildam3kjuN TUsw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywt9RkAeiOHQ5cHOtKcNkNAcg0M2hbo0museMvkbYh8/DbVVL7a KLXQhekuhuTZ0+mKSnqqNxcjOQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IELyEzMPCZIK1jGGqzZjOjX483WaD7ycdUy6EWhivpECGBZ90269Yo9hhrNGYoSLvPayW0Jww== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d581:b0:1cc:32ce:bd9 with SMTP id k1-20020a170902d58100b001cc32ce0bd9mr5679200plh.69.1698684834654; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (175.199.125.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.125.199.175]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c5-20020a170902d90500b001cc32f46757sm4438158plz.107.2023.10.30.09.53.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:53:48 -0700 From: David Matlack To: Sean Christopherson Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 03/35] KVM: Use gfn instead of hva for mmu_notifier_retry Message-ID: References: <20231027182217.3615211-1-seanjc@google.com> <20231027182217.3615211-4-seanjc@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231027182217.3615211-4-seanjc@google.com> 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: , Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Chao Peng , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Isaku Yamahata , Marc Zyngier , Huacai Chen , Xiaoyao Li , "Matthew Wilcox \(Oracle\)" , Wang , Fuad Tabba , Yu Zhang , Maciej Szmigiero , Albert Ou , Vlastimil Babka , Michael Roth , Ackerley Tng , Alexander Viro , Paul Walmsley , kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= , Isaku Yamahata , Christian Brauner , Quentin Perret , Li am Merwick , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Oliver Upton , Jarkko Sakkinen , Palmer Dabbelt , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Anup Patel , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Andrew Morton , Vishal Annapurve , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Xu Yilun , Anish Moorthy Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 2023-10-27 11:21 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > From: Chao Peng > > Currently in mmu_notifier invalidate path, hva range is recorded and > then checked against by mmu_notifier_retry_hva() in the page fault > handling path. However, for the to be introduced private memory, a page ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is there a missing word here? > fault may not have a hva associated, checking gfn(gpa) makes more sense. > > For existing hva based shared memory, gfn is expected to also work. The > only downside is when aliasing multiple gfns to a single hva, the > current algorithm of checking multiple ranges could result in a much > larger range being rejected. Such aliasing should be uncommon, so the > impact is expected small. > > Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson > Cc: Xu Yilun > Signed-off-by: Chao Peng > Reviewed-by: Fuad Tabba > Tested-by: Fuad Tabba > [sean: convert vmx_set_apic_access_page_addr() to gfn-based API] > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > --- > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 10 ++++++---- > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 11 +++++------ > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++------------ > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > index f7901cb4d2fa..d33657d61d80 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > @@ -3056,7 +3056,7 @@ static void direct_pte_prefetch(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep) > * > * There are several ways to safely use this helper: > * > - * - Check mmu_invalidate_retry_hva() after grabbing the mapping level, before > + * - Check mmu_invalidate_retry_gfn() after grabbing the mapping level, before > * consuming it. In this case, mmu_lock doesn't need to be held during the > * lookup, but it does need to be held while checking the MMU notifier. > * > @@ -4358,7 +4358,7 @@ static bool is_page_fault_stale(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > return true; > > return fault->slot && > - mmu_invalidate_retry_hva(vcpu->kvm, fault->mmu_seq, fault->hva); > + mmu_invalidate_retry_gfn(vcpu->kvm, fault->mmu_seq, fault->gfn); > } > > static int direct_page_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault) > @@ -6245,7 +6245,9 @@ void kvm_zap_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn_start, gfn_t gfn_end) > > write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock); > > - kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(kvm, 0, -1ul); > + kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(kvm); > + > + kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(kvm, gfn_start, gfn_end); > > flush = kvm_rmap_zap_gfn_range(kvm, gfn_start, gfn_end); > > @@ -6255,7 +6257,7 @@ void kvm_zap_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn_start, gfn_t gfn_end) > if (flush) > kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_range(kvm, gfn_start, gfn_end - gfn_start); > > - kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(kvm, 0, -1ul); > + kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(kvm); > > write_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock); > } > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c > index 72e3943f3693..6e502ba93141 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c > @@ -6757,10 +6757,10 @@ static void vmx_set_apic_access_page_addr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > return; > > /* > - * Grab the memslot so that the hva lookup for the mmu_notifier retry > - * is guaranteed to use the same memslot as the pfn lookup, i.e. rely > - * on the pfn lookup's validation of the memslot to ensure a valid hva > - * is used for the retry check. > + * Explicitly grab the memslot using KVM's internal slot ID to ensure > + * KVM doesn't unintentionally grab a userspace memslot. It _should_ > + * be impossible for userspace to create a memslot for the APIC when > + * APICv is enabled, but paranoia won't hurt in this case. > */ > slot = id_to_memslot(slots, APIC_ACCESS_PAGE_PRIVATE_MEMSLOT); > if (!slot || slot->flags & KVM_MEMSLOT_INVALID) > @@ -6785,8 +6785,7 @@ static void vmx_set_apic_access_page_addr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > return; > > read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock); > - if (mmu_invalidate_retry_hva(kvm, mmu_seq, > - gfn_to_hva_memslot(slot, gfn))) { > + if (mmu_invalidate_retry_gfn(kvm, mmu_seq, gfn)) { > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_APIC_PAGE_RELOAD, vcpu); > read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock); > goto out; > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > index fb6c6109fdca..11d091688346 100644 > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > @@ -787,8 +787,8 @@ struct kvm { > struct mmu_notifier mmu_notifier; > unsigned long mmu_invalidate_seq; > long mmu_invalidate_in_progress; > - unsigned long mmu_invalidate_range_start; > - unsigned long mmu_invalidate_range_end; > + gfn_t mmu_invalidate_range_start; > + gfn_t mmu_invalidate_range_end; > #endif > struct list_head devices; > u64 manual_dirty_log_protect; > @@ -1392,10 +1392,9 @@ void kvm_mmu_free_memory_cache(struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *mc); > void *kvm_mmu_memory_cache_alloc(struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *mc); > #endif > > -void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start, > - unsigned long end); > -void kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start, > - unsigned long end); > +void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm); > +void kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start, gfn_t end); What is the reason to separate range_add() from begin()? > +void kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(struct kvm *kvm); > > long kvm_arch_dev_ioctl(struct file *filp, > unsigned int ioctl, unsigned long arg); > @@ -1970,9 +1969,9 @@ static inline int mmu_invalidate_retry(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long mmu_seq) > return 0; > } > > -static inline int mmu_invalidate_retry_hva(struct kvm *kvm, > +static inline int mmu_invalidate_retry_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, > unsigned long mmu_seq, > - unsigned long hva) > + gfn_t gfn) > { > lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->mmu_lock); > /* > @@ -1981,10 +1980,20 @@ static inline int mmu_invalidate_retry_hva(struct kvm *kvm, > * that might be being invalidated. Note that it may include some false > * positives, due to shortcuts when handing concurrent invalidations. > */ > - if (unlikely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress) && > - hva >= kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start && > - hva < kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end) > - return 1; > + if (unlikely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress)) { > + /* > + * Dropping mmu_lock after bumping mmu_invalidate_in_progress > + * but before updating the range is a KVM bug. > + */ > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start == INVALID_GPA || > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end == INVALID_GPA)) > + return 1; > + > + if (gfn >= kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start && > + gfn < kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end) > + return 1; > + } > + > if (kvm->mmu_invalidate_seq != mmu_seq) > return 1; > return 0; > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > index 5a97e6c7d9c2..1a577a25de47 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c > @@ -543,9 +543,7 @@ static inline struct kvm *mmu_notifier_to_kvm(struct mmu_notifier *mn) > > typedef bool (*gfn_handler_t)(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range); > > -typedef void (*on_lock_fn_t)(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start, > - unsigned long end); > - > +typedef void (*on_lock_fn_t)(struct kvm *kvm); > typedef void (*on_unlock_fn_t)(struct kvm *kvm); > > struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range { > @@ -637,7 +635,8 @@ static __always_inline int __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm, > locked = true; > KVM_MMU_LOCK(kvm); > if (!IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->on_lock)) > - range->on_lock(kvm, range->start, range->end); > + range->on_lock(kvm); > + > if (IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->handler)) > break; > } > @@ -742,16 +741,29 @@ static void kvm_mmu_notifier_change_pte(struct mmu_notifier *mn, > kvm_handle_hva_range(mn, address, address + 1, arg, kvm_change_spte_gfn); > } > > -void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start, > - unsigned long end) > +void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm) > { > + lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock); > /* > * The count increase must become visible at unlock time as no > * spte can be established without taking the mmu_lock and > * count is also read inside the mmu_lock critical section. > */ > kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress++; > + > if (likely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress == 1)) { > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start = INVALID_GPA; > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end = INVALID_GPA; I don't think this is incorrect, but I was a little suprised to see this here rather than in end() when mmu_invalidate_in_progress decrements to 0. > + } > +} > + > +void kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start, gfn_t end) > +{ > + lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock); Does this compile/function on KVM architectures with !KVM_HAVE_MMU_RWLOCK? I assumed we would get an email from the buildbot if it didn't compile but I don't know if buildbot builds with lockdep enabled. On this topic, I wonder if we should just bit the bullet and convert all architectures to a rwlock_t. > + > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress); > + > + if (likely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start == INVALID_GPA)) { > kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start = start; > kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end = end; > } else { > @@ -771,6 +783,12 @@ void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start, > } > } > > +static bool kvm_mmu_unmap_gfn_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range) > +{ > + kvm_mmu_invalidate_range_add(kvm, range->start, range->end); > + return kvm_unmap_gfn_range(kvm, range); > +} > + > static int kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn, > const struct mmu_notifier_range *range) > { > @@ -778,7 +796,7 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn, > const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range hva_range = { > .start = range->start, > .end = range->end, > - .handler = kvm_unmap_gfn_range, > + .handler = kvm_mmu_unmap_gfn_range, > .on_lock = kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin, > .on_unlock = kvm_arch_guest_memory_reclaimed, > .flush_on_ret = true, > @@ -817,8 +835,7 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn, > return 0; > } > > -void kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start, > - unsigned long end) > +void kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(struct kvm *kvm) > { > /* > * This sequence increase will notify the kvm page fault that > @@ -834,6 +851,12 @@ void kvm_mmu_invalidate_end(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start, Let's add a lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock) here too while we're at it? > */ > kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress--; > KVM_BUG_ON(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress < 0, kvm); > + > + /* > + * Assert that at least one range was added between start() and end(). > + * Not adding a range isn't fatal, but it is a KVM bug. > + */ > + WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start == INVALID_GPA); > } > > static void kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(struct mmu_notifier *mn, > -- > 2.42.0.820.g83a721a137-goog >