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. */
next prev parent 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).