On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:25:06AM +0000, David Matlack wrote:
> Decompose kvm_mmu_get_page() into separate helper functions to increase
> readability and prepare for allocating shadow pages without a vcpu
> pointer.
>
> Specifically, pull the guts of kvm_mmu_get_page() into 3 helper
> functions:
>
> __kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page() -
> Walks the page hash checking for any existing mmu pages that match the
> given gfn and role. Does not attempt to synchronize the page if it is
> unsync.
>
> kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page() -
> Wraps __kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page() and handles syncing if necessary.
>
> kvm_mmu_new_shadow_page()
> Allocates and initializes an entirely new kvm_mmu_page. This currently
> requries a vcpu pointer for allocation and looking up the memslot but
> that will be removed in a future commit.
>
> Note, kvm_mmu_new_shadow_page() is temporary and will be removed in a
> subsequent commit. The name uses "new" rather than the more typical
> "alloc" to avoid clashing with the existing kvm_mmu_alloc_page().
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Matlack <[email protected]>
Looks good to me, a few nitpicks and questions below.
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 132 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h | 5 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/spte.c | 5 +-
> 3 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index 23c2004c6435..80dbfe07c87b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -2027,16 +2027,25 @@ static void clear_sp_write_flooding_count(u64 *spte)
> __clear_sp_write_flooding_count(sptep_to_sp(spte));
> }
>
> -static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_get_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t
> gfn,
> - union kvm_mmu_page_role role)
> +/*
> + * Searches for an existing SP for the given gfn and role. Makes no attempt
> to
> + * sync the SP if it is marked unsync.
> + *
> + * If creating an upper-level page table, zaps unsynced pages for the same
> + * gfn and adds them to the invalid_list. It's the callers responsibility
> + * to call kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page() on invalid_list.
> + */
> +static struct kvm_mmu_page *__kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page(struct kvm *kvm,
> + gfn_t gfn,
> + union kvm_mmu_page_role
> role,
> + struct list_head
> *invalid_list)
> {
> struct hlist_head *sp_list;
> struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
> int collisions = 0;
> - LIST_HEAD(invalid_list);
>
> - sp_list = &vcpu->kvm->arch.mmu_page_hash[kvm_page_table_hashfn(gfn)];
> - for_each_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, sp, sp_list) {
> + sp_list = &kvm->arch.mmu_page_hash[kvm_page_table_hashfn(gfn)];
> + for_each_valid_sp(kvm, sp, sp_list) {
> if (sp->gfn != gfn) {
> collisions++;
> continue;
> @@ -2053,60 +2062,109 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_get_page(struct
> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
> * upper-level page will be write-protected.
> */
> if (role.level > PG_LEVEL_4K && sp->unsync)
> - kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page(vcpu->kvm, sp,
> - &invalid_list);
> + kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page(kvm, sp, invalid_list);
> +
> continue;
> }
>
> - /* unsync and write-flooding only apply to indirect SPs. */
> - if (sp->role.direct)
> - goto trace_get_page;
> + /* Write-flooding is only tracked for indirect SPs. */
> + if (!sp->role.direct)
> + __clear_sp_write_flooding_count(sp);
>
> - if (sp->unsync) {
> - /*
> - * The page is good, but is stale. kvm_sync_page does
> - * get the latest guest state, but (unlike
> mmu_unsync_children)
> - * it doesn't write-protect the page or mark it
> synchronized!
> - * This way the validity of the mapping is ensured, but
> the
> - * overhead of write protection is not incurred until
> the
> - * guest invalidates the TLB mapping. This allows
> multiple
> - * SPs for a single gfn to be unsync.
> - *
> - * If the sync fails, the page is zapped. If so, break
> - * in order to rebuild it.
> - */
> - if (!kvm_sync_page(vcpu, sp, &invalid_list))
> - break;
> + goto out;
> + }
>
> - WARN_ON(!list_empty(&invalid_list));
> - kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
> - }
> + sp = NULL;
>
> - __clear_sp_write_flooding_count(sp);
> +out:
> + if (collisions > kvm->stat.max_mmu_page_hash_collisions)
> + kvm->stat.max_mmu_page_hash_collisions = collisions;
> +
> + return sp;
> +}
>
> -trace_get_page:
> - trace_kvm_mmu_get_page(sp, false);
> +/*
> + * Looks up an existing SP for the given gfn and role if one exists. The
> + * return SP is guaranteed to be synced.
> + */
> +static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> + gfn_t gfn,
> + union kvm_mmu_page_role
> role)
> +{
> + struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
> + LIST_HEAD(invalid_list);
> +
> + sp = __kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn, role, &invalid_list);
> + if (!sp)
> goto out;
> +
> + if (sp->unsync) {
> + /*
> + * The page is good, but is stale. kvm_sync_page does
> + * get the latest guest state, but (unlike mmu_unsync_children)
> + * it doesn't write-protect the page or mark it synchronized!
> + * This way the validity of the mapping is ensured, but the
> + * overhead of write protection is not incurred until the
> + * guest invalidates the TLB mapping. This allows multiple
> + * SPs for a single gfn to be unsync.
> + *
> + * If the sync fails, the page is zapped and added to the
> + * invalid_list.
> + */
> + if (!kvm_sync_page(vcpu, sp, &invalid_list)) {
> + sp = NULL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + WARN_ON(!list_empty(&invalid_list));
Not related to this patch because I think it's a pure movement here,
however I have a question on why invalid_list is guaranteed to be empty..
I'm thinking the case where when lookup the page we could have already
called kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page() there, then when reach here (which is the
kvm_sync_page==true case) invalid_list shouldn't be touched in
kvm_sync_page(), so it looks possible that it still contains some page to
be commited?
> + kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
> }
>
> +out:
I'm wondering whether this "out" can be dropped.. with something like:
sp = __kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page(...);
if (sp && sp->unsync) {
if (kvm_sync_page(vcpu, sp, &invalid_list)) {
..
} else {
sp = NULL;
}
}
[...]
> +static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_get_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t
> gfn,
> + union kvm_mmu_page_role role)
> +{
> + struct kvm_mmu_page *sp;
> + bool created = false;
> +
> + sp = kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page(vcpu, gfn, role);
> + if (sp)
> + goto out;
> +
> + created = true;
> + sp = kvm_mmu_new_shadow_page(vcpu, gfn, role);
> +
> +out:
> + trace_kvm_mmu_get_page(sp, created);
> return sp;
Same here, wondering whether we could drop the "out" by:
sp = kvm_mmu_find_shadow_page(vcpu, gfn, role);
if (!sp) {
created = true;
sp = kvm_mmu_new_shadow_page(vcpu, gfn, role);
}
trace_kvm_mmu_get_page(sp, created);
return sp;
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
