From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f73.google.com (mail-pj1-f73.google.com [209.85.216.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 084A426FA6C for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:45:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.73 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740494702; cv=none; b=jag4+ufMhKhoE8Lov4vBjfb497oYUGQBmp7fkRmIPuQklBLatrpta+t10lideEDYnryaP+RRMWYhnV7m/WV3z8N/ROdvt2kXQZSpl1tkm6r8+tI5z6BEoKqO+/kFLzPsg9pSuoZXouUBk2wW4lIqUO5UthQCRodGq0vjYTpHkm4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740494702; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JVQ6Hr0btkRg9FyQveqK2uYTu6pLizXhjF4MAm5RJjg=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=pwVGIbQ+/wsJrerFnBRI2Gy7633FvDmCLtSompDepFEU8iRSXujAfQ+YGu5MwovVy1b4xptsGMhkMztrLTkrvxS42quQjZFyflZ4QK0SsWIstLDd3IZpsjHIrSo7WdT2nZG/j0kjduMi9P/PozsZZi99lL6Tnd9oYR7A48irnKk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=ErDm6Qnr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.73 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="ErDm6Qnr" Received: by mail-pj1-f73.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2f816a85facso11764845a91.3 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 06:45:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1740494700; x=1741099500; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NffzjCDpuTmdNSnLuEbvoNsdUgp9uFncpWixfvcrqX0=; b=ErDm6Qnr22k+IEMH7rw+JceY/6JGM1BtZxk9OemMdvx8e8Dw6DYt41goWr+00YOe6h P5xdKZ604HzPxsOpvY3Rmq3VyE8AFxswqIEqrGbB2giN2Jzt/YNxvCmBpXA857LcRlop jt7IhXyKQGytdOFk/F8PzmNHWUMHe/xF3NH90zgYVyOuBHM+5hfL2nf90/4ZbjRXCloR HGmdCoRLRfZhHlc7jMCSEROOJDe4iq9yAHiwQTp2nroff8RlQS0ZvWpRaXnUxQF++xCj zl5Wx8ksBsNfWwBNN7fTSQWF6VxMe9hsUSo3ofbFvzOo1ZkXW50kZYO73NsFesP+0bwH zElg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740494700; x=1741099500; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NffzjCDpuTmdNSnLuEbvoNsdUgp9uFncpWixfvcrqX0=; b=mSuUTzfnAXzhQQv8KYvMw58Ngcg3oLy2aW1yy/wuCPW2S+UKaBqXaGWCF3otm2Z6Gq V+kwAfcyOzOxnwlhwjUDg8Ueu8NeLRBP17OdOy70f7Nmbr+xRkTUjrAPACCQ3RKr+px6 SeE35VMddVgHFB2Uv8Tt1AcLSiGk/lUGjVr6EMaBRuLQ/JqD9zjdY73OOERUv02owA4G WKDENK3EwgprKFq2IjfnWuJay1AN8396Tu1JVQf6DSVGf75bSx74+5I0auK//DhPPN9a 2rGO8bBI0z6+9LUk72YlO3Mpggji22wXv6/rjQaOXVZBScpGhv1cfM6U9uG711pETssH 7zXg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXV3ckqnB5xh5jN0E5j/XaP7yyK0tmpCNS6q2I7KJpfe3c57h/Jwuikhbf4ufmbWBO4eUfYK//IECc=@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx7EfuFMrSbisKW6oakYHhzln8G8Pdxv2DOib7l9kT8NFLMnlT9 fEqyQnG6wHvMzHZQZ0nUYMkXZIs7eSmhEW482x9xZCKbHLYpc99pecZH8XUjQbYq/s8FLtxYDBy bLw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG2KruXetDYoI9qbCSWmcITW+yhg6mxBcrrqoCenX7IkOOc3aJKkHxPw+LBj1f6DGaIHr4WklpxusU= X-Received: from pjh14.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:90b:3f8e:b0:2ea:29de:af10]) (user=seanjc job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:90b:548f:b0:2ee:d7d3:3008 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2fce86ae5d0mr31991980a91.12.1740494700343; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 06:45:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 06:44:58 -0800 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: loongarch@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20250224235542.2562848-1-seanjc@google.com> <20250224235542.2562848-5-seanjc@google.com> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] KVM: x86: Don't load/put vCPU when unloading its MMU during teardown From: Sean Christopherson To: Yan Zhao Cc: Marc Zyngier , Oliver Upton , Tianrui Zhao , Bibo Mao , Huacai Chen , Madhavan Srinivasan , Anup Patel , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Christian Borntraeger , Janosch Frank , Claudio Imbrenda , Paolo Bonzini , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Aaron Lewis , Jim Mattson , Rick P Edgecombe , Kai Huang , Isaku Yamahata Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tue, Feb 25, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 03:55:39PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Don't load (and then put) a vCPU when unloading its MMU during VM > > destruction, as nothing in kvm_mmu_unload() accesses vCPU state beyond the > > root page/address of each MMU, i.e. can't possible need to run with the > > vCPU loaded. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson > > --- > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 9 +-------- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > index 045c61cc7e54..9978ed4c0917 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > > @@ -12767,13 +12767,6 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type) > > return ret; > > } > > > > -static void kvm_unload_vcpu_mmu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > -{ > > - vcpu_load(vcpu); > > - kvm_mmu_unload(vcpu); > > - vcpu_put(vcpu); > > -} > > - > > static void kvm_unload_vcpu_mmus(struct kvm *kvm) > > { > > unsigned long i; > > @@ -12781,7 +12774,7 @@ static void kvm_unload_vcpu_mmus(struct kvm *kvm) > > > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) { > > kvm_clear_async_pf_completion_queue(vcpu); > > - kvm_unload_vcpu_mmu(vcpu); > > + kvm_mmu_unload(vcpu); > What about just dropping kvm_unload_vcpu_mmu() here? > kvm_mmu_unload() will be invoked again in kvm_mmu_destroy(). > > kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy() --> kvm_mmu_destroy() --> kvm_mmu_unload(). Ugh, I missed that there's yet another call to kvm_mmu_unload(). I definitely agree with dropping the first kvm_mmu_load(), but I'll do it in a follow-up patch so that all three changes are isolated (not doing the load/put, doing unload as part of vCPU destruction, doing unload only once at the end). And looking at both calls to kvm_mmu_unload(), I suspect that grabbing kvm->srcu around kvm_mmu_destroy() is unnecessary. I'll try cleaning that up as well.