From: Paul Durrant <[email protected]> Taking a write lock on a pfncache will be disruptive if the cache is heavily used (which only requires a read lock). Hence, in the MMU notifier callback, take read locks on caches to check for a match; only taking a write lock to actually perform an invalidation (after a another check).
Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <[email protected]> --- Cc: Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> Cc: David Woodhouse <[email protected]> v10: - New in this version. --- virt/kvm/pfncache.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/virt/kvm/pfncache.c b/virt/kvm/pfncache.c index c2a2d1e145b6..4da16d494f4b 100644 --- a/virt/kvm/pfncache.c +++ b/virt/kvm/pfncache.c @@ -29,14 +29,30 @@ void gfn_to_pfn_cache_invalidate_start(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start, spin_lock(&kvm->gpc_lock); list_for_each_entry(gpc, &kvm->gpc_list, list) { - write_lock_irq(&gpc->lock); + read_lock_irq(&gpc->lock); /* Only a single page so no need to care about length */ if (gpc->valid && !is_error_noslot_pfn(gpc->pfn) && gpc->uhva >= start && gpc->uhva < end) { - gpc->valid = false; + read_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock); + + /* + * There is a small window here where the cache could + * be modified, and invalidation would no longer be + * necessary. Hence check again whether invalidation + * is still necessary once the write lock has been + * acquired. + */ + + write_lock_irq(&gpc->lock); + if (gpc->valid && !is_error_noslot_pfn(gpc->pfn) && + gpc->uhva >= start && gpc->uhva < end) + gpc->valid = false; + write_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock); + continue; } - write_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock); + + read_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock); } spin_unlock(&kvm->gpc_lock); } -- 2.39.2
