On 24.08.2017 17:56, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> update_permission_bitmask currently does a 128-iteration loop to,
> essentially, compute a constant array. Computing the 8 bits in parallel
> reduces it to 16 iterations, and is enough to speed it up substantially
> because many boolean operations in the inner loop become constants or
> simplify noticeably.
>
> Because update_permission_bitmask is actually the top item in the profile
> for nested vmexits, this speeds up an L2->L1 vmexit by about ten thousand
> clock cycles, or up to 30%:
>
> before after
> cpuid 35173 25954
> vmcall 35122 27079
> inl_from_pmtimer 52635 42675
> inl_from_qemu 53604 44599
> inl_from_kernel 38498 30798
> outl_to_kernel 34508 28816
> wr_tsc_adjust_msr 34185 26818
> rd_tsc_adjust_msr 37409 27049
> mmio-no-eventfd:pci-mem 50563 45276
> mmio-wildcard-eventfd:pci-mem 34495 30823
> mmio-datamatch-eventfd:pci-mem 35612 31071
> portio-no-eventfd:pci-io 44925 40661
> portio-wildcard-eventfd:pci-io 29708 27269
> portio-datamatch-eventfd:pci-io 31135 27164
>
> (I wrote a small C program to compare the tables for all values of CR0.WP,
> CR4.SMAP and CR4.SMEP, and they match).
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 121
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> index f47cccace1a1..2a8a6e3e2a31 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -4204,66 +4204,85 @@ static inline bool boot_cpu_is_amd(void)
> boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits, execonly);
> }
>
> +#define BYTE_MASK(access) \
> + ((1 & (access) ? 2 : 0) | \
> + (2 & (access) ? 4 : 0) | \
> + (3 & (access) ? 8 : 0) | \
> + (4 & (access) ? 16 : 0) | \
> + (5 & (access) ? 32 : 0) | \
> + (6 & (access) ? 64 : 0) | \
> + (7 & (access) ? 128 : 0))
> +
Hmm, I wonder if
#define BYTE_MASK(access) \
((1 & (access) ? (1 << 1) : 0) | \
(2 & (access) ? (1 << 2) : 0) | \
...
would be easier to get
> +
> static void update_permission_bitmask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> struct kvm_mmu *mmu, bool ept)
> {
> - unsigned bit, byte, pfec;
> - u8 map;
> - bool fault, x, w, u, wf, uf, ff, smapf, cr4_smap, cr4_smep, smap = 0;
> + unsigned byte;
> +
> + const u8 x = BYTE_MASK(ACC_EXEC_MASK);
> + const u8 w = BYTE_MASK(ACC_WRITE_MASK);
> + const u8 u = BYTE_MASK(ACC_USER_MASK);
> +
> + bool cr4_smep = kvm_read_cr4_bits(vcpu, X86_CR4_SMEP) != 0;
> + bool cr4_smap = kvm_read_cr4_bits(vcpu, X86_CR4_SMAP) != 0;
> + bool cr0_wp = is_write_protection(vcpu);
all three can be turned const. (and I'd drop the empty lines in between ..)
>
> - cr4_smep = kvm_read_cr4_bits(vcpu, X86_CR4_SMEP);
> - cr4_smap = kvm_read_cr4_bits(vcpu, X86_CR4_SMAP);
> for (byte = 0; byte < ARRAY_SIZE(mmu->permissions); ++byte) {
> - pfec = byte << 1;
> - map = 0;
> - wf = pfec & PFERR_WRITE_MASK;
> - uf = pfec & PFERR_USER_MASK;
> - ff = pfec & PFERR_FETCH_MASK;
> + unsigned pfec = byte << 1;
This one can be turned const, too. And I think you could get rid of
"byte" and directly work on "pfec" ... but not sure if that is better.
Most probably not.
> +
> /*
> - * PFERR_RSVD_MASK bit is set in PFEC if the access is not
> - * subject to SMAP restrictions, and cleared otherwise. The
> - * bit is only meaningful if the SMAP bit is set in CR4.
> + * Each "*f" variable has a 1 bit for each UWX value
> + * that causes a fault with the given PFEC.
> */
> - smapf = !(pfec & PFERR_RSVD_MASK);
> - for (bit = 0; bit < 8; ++bit) {
> - x = bit & ACC_EXEC_MASK;
> - w = bit & ACC_WRITE_MASK;
> - u = bit & ACC_USER_MASK;
> -
> - if (!ept) {
> - /* Not really needed: !nx will cause pte.nx to
> fault */
> - x |= !mmu->nx;
> - /* Allow supervisor writes if !cr0.wp */
> - w |= !is_write_protection(vcpu) && !uf;
> - /* Disallow supervisor fetches of user code if
> cr4.smep */
> - x &= !(cr4_smep && u && !uf);
> -
> - /*
> - * SMAP:kernel-mode data accesses from user-mode
> - * mappings should fault. A fault is considered
> - * as a SMAP violation if all of the following
> - * conditions are ture:
> - * - X86_CR4_SMAP is set in CR4
> - * - A user page is accessed
> - * - Page fault in kernel mode
> - * - if CPL = 3 or X86_EFLAGS_AC is clear
> - *
> - * Here, we cover the first three conditions.
> - * The fourth is computed dynamically in
> - * permission_fault() and is in smapf.
> - *
> - * Also, SMAP does not affect instruction
> - * fetches, add the !ff check here to make it
> - * clearer.
> - */
> - smap = cr4_smap && u && !uf && !ff;
> - }
>
> - fault = (ff && !x) || (uf && !u) || (wf && !w) ||
> - (smapf && smap);
> - map |= fault << bit;
> + /* Faults from writes to non-writable pages */
> + u8 wf = (pfec & PFERR_WRITE_MASK) ? ~w : 0;
> + /* Faults from user mode accesses to supervisor pages */
> + u8 uf = (pfec & PFERR_USER_MASK) ? ~u : 0;
> + /* Faults from fetches of non-executable pages*/
> + u8 ff = (pfec & PFERR_FETCH_MASK) ? ~x : 0;
> + /* Faults from kernel mode fetches of user pages */
> + u8 smepf = 0;
> + /* Faults from kernel mode accesses of user pages */
> + u8 smapf = 0;
> +
> + if (!ept) {
> + /* Faults from kernel mode accesses to user pages */
> + u8 kf = (pfec & PFERR_USER_MASK) ? 0 : u;
> +
> + /* Not really needed: !nx will cause pte.nx to fault */
> + if (!mmu->nx)
> + ff = 0;
> +
> + /* Allow supervisor writes if !cr0.wp */
> + if (!cr0_wp)
> + wf = (pfec & PFERR_USER_MASK) ? wf : 0;
> +
> + /* Disallow supervisor fetches of user code if cr4.smep
> */
> + if (cr4_smep)
> + smepf = (pfec & PFERR_FETCH_MASK) ? kf : 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * SMAP:kernel-mode data accesses from user-mode
> + * mappings should fault. A fault is considered
> + * as a SMAP violation if all of the following
> + * conditions are ture:
> + * - X86_CR4_SMAP is set in CR4
> + * - A user page is accessed
> + * - The access is not a fetch
> + * - Page fault in kernel mode
> + * - if CPL = 3 or X86_EFLAGS_AC is clear
> + *
> + * Here, we cover the first three conditions.
> + * The fourth is computed dynamically in
> permission_fault();
> + * PFERR_RSVD_MASK bit will be set in PFEC if the
> access is
> + * *not* subject to SMAP restrictions.
> + */
> + if (cr4_smap)
> + smapf = (pfec &
> (PFERR_RSVD_MASK|PFERR_FETCH_MASK)) ? 0 : kf;
> }
> - mmu->permissions[byte] = map;
> +
> + mmu->permissions[byte] = ff | uf | wf | smepf | smapf;
> }
> }
>
>
My brain hurts, but I am pretty confident that this is correct. :)
--
Thanks,
David
