On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 04:24:20PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 05:05:40PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:51:19AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > I think we also need to update kvm->arch.vttbr before updating
> > > kvm->arch.vmid_gen, otherwise another CPU can come in, see that the
> > > vmid_gen is up-to-date, jump to hyp, and program a stale VTTBR (with the
> > > old VMID).
> > > 
> > > With the smp_wmb() and update of kvm->arch.vmid_gen moved to the end of
> > > the critical section, I think that works, modulo using READ_ONCE() and
> > > WRITE_ONCE() to ensure single-copy-atomicity of the fields we access
> > > locklessly.
> > 
> > Indeed, you're right.  I would look something like this, then:
> > 
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > index 2e43f9d42bd5..6cb08995e7ff 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > @@ -450,7 +450,9 @@ void force_vm_exit(const cpumask_t *mask)
> >   */
> >  static bool need_new_vmid_gen(struct kvm *kvm)
> >  {
> > -   return unlikely(kvm->arch.vmid_gen != atomic64_read(&kvm_vmid_gen));
> > +   u64 current_vmid_gen = atomic64_read(&kvm_vmid_gen);
> > +   smp_rmb(); /* Orders read of kvm_vmid_gen and kvm->arch.vmid */
> > +   return unlikely(READ_ONCE(kvm->arch.vmid_gen) != current_vmid_gen);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > @@ -500,7 +502,6 @@ static void update_vttbr(struct kvm *kvm)
> >             kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_flush_vm_context);
> >     }
> >  
> > -   kvm->arch.vmid_gen = atomic64_read(&kvm_vmid_gen);
> >     kvm->arch.vmid = kvm_next_vmid;
> >     kvm_next_vmid++;
> >     kvm_next_vmid &= (1 << kvm_vmid_bits) - 1;
> > @@ -509,7 +510,10 @@ static void update_vttbr(struct kvm *kvm)
> >     pgd_phys = virt_to_phys(kvm->arch.pgd);
> >     BUG_ON(pgd_phys & ~VTTBR_BADDR_MASK);
> >     vmid = ((u64)(kvm->arch.vmid) << VTTBR_VMID_SHIFT) & 
> > VTTBR_VMID_MASK(kvm_vmid_bits);
> > -   kvm->arch.vttbr = pgd_phys | vmid;
> > +   WRITE_ONCE(kvm->arch.vttbr, pgd_phys | vmid);
> > +
> > +   smp_wmb(); /* Ensure vttbr update is observed before vmid_gen update */
> > +   kvm->arch.vmid_gen = atomic64_read(&kvm_vmid_gen);
> >  
> >     spin_unlock(&kvm_vmid_lock);
> >  }
> 
> I think that's right, yes.
> 
> We could replace the smp_{r,w}mb() barriers with an acquire of the
> kvm_vmid_gen and a release of kvm->arch.vmid_gen, but if we're really
> trying to optimize things there are larger algorithmic changes necessary
> anyhow.
> 
> > It's probably easier to convince ourselves about the correctness of
> > Marc's code using a rwlock instead, though.  Thoughts?
> 
> I believe that Marc's preference was the rwlock; I have no preference
> either way.
> 

I'm fine with both approaches as well, but it was educational for me to
see if this could be done in the lockless way as well.  Thanks for
having a look at that!

-Christoffer
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Reply via email to