On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:33:55 +0000,
Robin Murphy wrote:
> 
> On 13/03/18 13:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > [You're repeatedly posting to the kvmarm mailing list without being
> > subscribed to it. I've flushed the queue now, but please consider
> > subscribing to the list, it will help everyone]
> > 
> > On 13/03/18 21:03, Peng Hao wrote:
> >> Using a global per-CPU variable instead of per-VM's per-CPU variable.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <peng.h...@zte.com.cn>
> >> ---
> >>   arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h   |  3 ---
> >>   arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  3 ---
> >>   virt/kvm/arm/arm.c                | 26 ++++++--------------------
> >>   3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h 
> >> b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> index 248b930..4224f3b 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> @@ -59,9 +59,6 @@ struct kvm_arch {
> >>    /* VTTBR value associated with below pgd and vmid */
> >>    u64    vttbr;
> >>   -        /* The last vcpu id that ran on each physical CPU */
> >> -  int __percpu *last_vcpu_ran;
> >> -
> >>    /*
> >>     * Anything that is not used directly from assembly code goes
> >>     * here.
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h 
> >> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> index 596f8e4..5035a08 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> @@ -67,9 +67,6 @@ struct kvm_arch {
> >>    /* VTTBR value associated with above pgd and vmid */
> >>    u64    vttbr;
> >>   -        /* The last vcpu id that ran on each physical CPU */
> >> -  int __percpu *last_vcpu_ran;
> >> -
> >>    /* The maximum number of vCPUs depends on the used GIC model */
> >>    int max_vcpus;
> >>   diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> >> index 86941f6..a67ffb0 100644
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> >> @@ -59,6 +59,8 @@
> >>   /* Per-CPU variable containing the currently running vcpu. */
> >>   static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, kvm_arm_running_vcpu);
> >>   +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct kvm_vcpu *, kvm_last_ran_vcpu);
> >> +
> >>   /* The VMID used in the VTTBR */
> >>   static atomic64_t kvm_vmid_gen = ATOMIC64_INIT(1);
> >>   static u32 kvm_next_vmid;
> >> @@ -115,18 +117,11 @@ void kvm_arch_check_processor_compat(void *rtn)
> >>    */
> >>   int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
> >>   {
> >> -  int ret, cpu;
> >> +  int ret;
> >>            if (type)
> >>            return -EINVAL;
> >>   -        kvm->arch.last_vcpu_ran =
> >> alloc_percpu(typeof(*kvm->arch.last_vcpu_ran));
> >> -  if (!kvm->arch.last_vcpu_ran)
> >> -          return -ENOMEM;
> >> -
> >> -  for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> >> -          *per_cpu_ptr(kvm->arch.last_vcpu_ran, cpu) = -1;
> >> -
> >>    ret = kvm_alloc_stage2_pgd(kvm);
> >>    if (ret)
> >>            goto out_fail_alloc;
> >> @@ -147,9 +142,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long 
> >> type)
> >>    return ret;
> >>   out_free_stage2_pgd:
> >>    kvm_free_stage2_pgd(kvm);
> >> -out_fail_alloc:
> >> -  free_percpu(kvm->arch.last_vcpu_ran);
> >> -  kvm->arch.last_vcpu_ran = NULL;
> >> +out_fail_alloc:
> >>    return ret;
> >>   }
> >>   @@ -179,9 +172,6 @@ void kvm_arch_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> >>            kvm_vgic_destroy(kvm);
> >>   -        free_percpu(kvm->arch.last_vcpu_ran);
> >> -  kvm->arch.last_vcpu_ran = NULL;
> >> -
> >>    for (i = 0; i < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; ++i) {
> >>            if (kvm->vcpus[i]) {
> >>                    kvm_arch_vcpu_free(kvm->vcpus[i]);
> >> @@ -343,17 +333,13 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>     void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> >>   {
> >> -  int *last_ran;
> >> -
> >> -  last_ran = this_cpu_ptr(vcpu->kvm->arch.last_vcpu_ran);
> >> -
> >>    /*
> >>     * We might get preempted before the vCPU actually runs, but
> >>     * over-invalidation doesn't affect correctness.
> >>     */
> >> -  if (*last_ran != vcpu->vcpu_id) {
> >> +  if (per_cpu(kvm_last_ran_vcpu, cpu) != vcpu) {
> >>            kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_tlb_flush_local_vmid, vcpu);
> >> -          *last_ran = vcpu->vcpu_id;
> >> +          per_cpu(kvm_last_ran_vcpu, cpu) = vcpu;
> >>    }
> >>            vcpu->cpu = cpu;
> >> 
> > 
> > Have you read and understood what this code is about? The whole point of
> > this code is to track physical CPUs on a per-VM basis. Making it global
> > completely defeats the point, and can result in guest memory corruption.
> > Please see commit 94d0e5980d67.
> 
> I won't comment on the patch itself (AFAICS it is rather broken), but
> I suppose there is a grain of sense in the general idea, since the set
> of physical CPUs itself is fundamentally a global thing. Given a large
> number of pCPUs and a large number of VMs it could well be more
> space-efficient to keep a single per-pCPU record of a {vmid,vcpu_id}
> tuple or some other *globally-unique* vCPU namespace (I guess just the
> struct kvm_vcpu pointer might work, but then it would be hard to avoid
> unnecessary invalidation when switching VMIDs entirely).

The main issue with this approach is to come up with a data structure
that allows quick retrieval/replacement, doesn't have weird locking
requirements and doesn't require to allocate memory unexpectedly.

The advantage of the current approach is to sidestep these potential
issues altogether by having a single, up-front allocation and zero
locking requirements. I fully appreciate that in the long run, we may
need to move away from it. I'm not quite sure what to replace it
with. Something like a per-CPU btree seems like a possibility.

        M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.

Reply via email to