linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
	Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
	David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>,
	Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@gmail.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>,
	Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 11/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Factor shadow_zero_check out of make_spte
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 03:29:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YZXIqAHftH4d+B9Y@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YZW02M0+YzAzBF/w@google.com>

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > In the interest of devloping a version of make_spte that can function
> > without a vCPU pointer, factor out the shadow_zero_mask to be an
> > additional argument to the function.
> > 
> > No functional change intended.
> > 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c | 11 +++++++----
> >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.h |  3 ++-
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> > index b7271daa06c5..d3b059e96c6e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
> > @@ -93,7 +93,8 @@ bool make_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
> >  	       struct kvm_memory_slot *slot, unsigned int pte_access,
> >  	       gfn_t gfn, kvm_pfn_t pfn, u64 old_spte, bool prefetch,
> >  	       bool can_unsync, bool host_writable, bool ad_need_write_protect,
> > -	       u64 mt_mask, u64 *new_spte)
> > +	       u64 mt_mask, struct rsvd_bits_validate *shadow_zero_check,
> 
> Ugh, so I had a big email written about how I think we should add a module param
> to control 4-level vs. 5-level for all TDP pages, but then I realized it wouldn't
> work for nested EPT because that follows the root level used by L1.  We could
> still make a global non_nested_tdp_shadow_zero_check or whatever, but then make_spte()
> would have to do some work to find the right rsvd_bits_validate, and the end result
> would likely be a mess.
> 
> One idea to avoid exploding make_spte() would be to add a backpointer to the MMU
> in kvm_mmu_page.  I don't love the idea, but I also don't love passing in rsvd_bits_validate.

Another idea.  The only difference between 5-level and 4-level is that 5-level
fills in index [4], and I'm pretty sure 4-level doesn't touch that index.  For
PAE NPT (32-bit SVM), the shadow root level will never change, so that's not an issue.

Nested NPT is the only case where anything for an EPT/NPT MMU can change, because
that follows EFER.NX.

In other words, the non-nested TDP reserved bits don't need to be recalculated
regardless of level, they can just fill in 5-level and leave it be.

E.g. something like the below.  The sp->role.direct check could be removed if we
forced EFER.NX for nested NPT.

It's a bit ugly in that we'd pass both @kvm and @vcpu, so that needs some more
thought, but at minimum it means there's no need to recalc the reserved bits.

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
index 84e64dbdd89e..05db9b89dc53 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c
@@ -95,10 +95,18 @@ bool make_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
               u64 old_spte, bool prefetch, bool can_unsync,
               bool host_writable, u64 *new_spte)
 {
+       struct rsvd_bits_validate *rsvd_check;
        int level = sp->role.level;
        u64 spte = SPTE_MMU_PRESENT_MASK;
        bool wrprot = false;

+       if (vcpu) {
+               rsvd_check = vcpu->arch.mmu->shadow_zero_check;
+       } else {
+               WARN_ON_ONCE(!tdp_enabled || !sp->role.direct);
+               rsvd_check = tdp_shadow_rsvd_bits;
+       }
+
        if (sp->role.ad_disabled)
                spte |= SPTE_TDP_AD_DISABLED_MASK;
        else if (kvm_mmu_page_ad_need_write_protect(sp))
@@ -177,9 +185,9 @@ bool make_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp,
        if (prefetch)
                spte = mark_spte_for_access_track(spte);

-       WARN_ONCE(is_rsvd_spte(&vcpu->arch.mmu->shadow_zero_check, spte, level),
+       WARN_ONCE(is_rsvd_spte(rsvd_check, spte, level),
                  "spte = 0x%llx, level = %d, rsvd bits = 0x%llx", spte, level,
-                 get_rsvd_bits(&vcpu->arch.mmu->shadow_zero_check, spte, level));
+                 get_rsvd_bits(rsvd_check, spte, level));

        if ((spte & PT_WRITABLE_MASK) && kvm_slot_dirty_track_enabled(slot)) {
                /* Enforced by kvm_mmu_hugepage_adjust. */

  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-18  3:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-10 22:29 [RFC 00/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Optimize disabling dirty logging Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:29 ` [RFC 01/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Fix TLB flush range when handling disconnected pt Ben Gardon
2021-11-11 17:44   ` David Matlack
2021-11-10 22:29 ` [RFC 02/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Batch TLB flushes for a single zap Ben Gardon
2021-11-11 18:06   ` David Matlack
2021-11-12 23:53   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-10 22:29 ` [RFC 03/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Factor flush and free up when zapping under MMU write lock Ben Gardon
2021-11-11 18:31   ` David Matlack
2021-11-10 22:29 ` [RFC 04/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Yield while processing disconnected_sps Ben Gardon
2021-11-11 18:50   ` David Matlack
2021-11-10 22:29 ` [RFC 05/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Remove redundant flushes when disabling dirty logging Ben Gardon
2021-11-11 18:55   ` David Matlack
2021-11-10 22:29 ` [RFC 06/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Introduce vcpu_make_spte Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:29 ` [RFC 07/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Factor wrprot for nested PML out of make_spte Ben Gardon
2021-11-18  2:12   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-18 17:43     ` Ben Gardon
2021-11-18 18:04       ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-10 22:29 ` [RFC 08/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Factor mt_mask " Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:30 ` [RFC 09/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Remove need for a vcpu from kvm_slot_page_track_is_active Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:30 ` [RFC 10/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Remove need for a vcpu from mmu_try_to_unsync_pages Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:30 ` [RFC 11/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Factor shadow_zero_check out of make_spte Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:44   ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-10 23:49     ` Ben Gardon
2021-11-11  1:18       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-11  1:44         ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-11  7:06         ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-18  2:05   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-18  3:29     ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2021-11-18 16:37       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-18 17:19         ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-18 18:02           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-18 18:07             ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-11-18 18:14               ` Sean Christopherson
2021-11-10 22:30 ` [RFC 12/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Replace vcpu argument with kvm pointer in make_spte Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:30 ` [RFC 13/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Factor out the meat of reset_tdp_shadow_zero_bits_mask Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:30 ` [RFC 14/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Propagate memslot const qualifier Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:30 ` [RFC 15/19] KVM: x86/MMU: Refactor vmx_get_mt_mask Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:30 ` [RFC 16/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Factor out part of vmx_get_mt_mask which does not depend on vcpu Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:30 ` [RFC 17/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Add try_get_mt_mask to x86_ops Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:30 ` [RFC 18/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Make kvm_is_mmio_pfn usable outside of spte.c Ben Gardon
2021-11-10 22:30 ` [RFC 19/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Promote pages in-place when disabling dirty logging Ben Gardon
2021-11-15 21:24 ` [RFC 00/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Optimize " Ben Gardon

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=YZXIqAHftH4d+B9Y@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=bgardon@google.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=dmatlack@google.com \
    --cc=kai.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=kernellwp@gmail.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mizhang@google.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterx@redhat.com \
    --cc=pshier@google.com \
    --cc=xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com \
    --cc=yulei.kernel@gmail.com \
    --cc=zhukeqian1@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).