On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:15:34AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 11/01/15 12:30, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 02:35:49PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 09/01/15 12:30, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 11:59:08AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>>> Let's assume a guest has created an uncached mapping, and written
> >>>> to that page. Let's also assume that the host uses a cache-coherent
> >>>> IO subsystem. Let's finally assume that the host is under memory
> >>>> pressure and starts to swap things out.
> >>>>
> >>>> Before this "uncached" page is evicted, we need to make sure it
> >>>> gets invalidated, or the IO subsystem is going to swap out the
> >>>> cached view, loosing the data that has been written there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++
> >>>> 3 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h
> >>>> index 63e0ecc..7ceb836 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h
> >>>> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
> >>>>
> >>>> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> >>>>
> >>>> +#include <linux/highmem.h>
> >>>> #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
> >>>> #include <asm/pgalloc.h>
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -190,6 +191,36 @@ static inline void coherent_cache_guest_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, hva_t hva,
> >>>>
> >>>> #define kvm_virt_to_phys(x) virt_to_idmap((unsigned long)(x))
> >>>>
> >>>> +static inline void __kvm_flush_dcache_pte(pte_t pte)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + void *va = kmap_atomic(pte_page(pte));
> >>>> +
> >>>> + kvm_flush_dcache_to_poc(va, PAGE_SIZE);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + kunmap_atomic(va);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static inline void __kvm_flush_dcache_pmd(pmd_t pmd)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + unsigned long size = PMD_SIZE;
> >>>> + pfn_t pfn = pmd_pfn(pmd);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + while (size) {
> >>>> + void *va = kmap_atomic_pfn(pfn);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + kvm_flush_dcache_to_poc(va, PAGE_SIZE);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + pfn++;
> >>>> + size -= PAGE_SIZE;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + kunmap_atomic(va);
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static inline void __kvm_flush_dcache_pud(pud_t pud)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> void stage2_flush_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
> >>>>
> >>>> #endif /* !__ASSEMBLY__ */
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
> >>>> index 1dc9778..1f5b793 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
> >>>> @@ -58,6 +58,21 @@ static void kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa(struct kvm *kvm, phys_addr_t ipa)
> >>>> kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa, kvm, ipa);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static void kvm_flush_dcache_pte(pte_t pte)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + __kvm_flush_dcache_pte(pte);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static void kvm_flush_dcache_pmd(pmd_t pmd)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + __kvm_flush_dcache_pmd(pmd);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static void kvm_flush_dcache_pud(pud_t pud)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + __kvm_flush_dcache_pud(pud);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> static int mmu_topup_memory_cache(struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *cache,
> >>>> int min, int max)
> >>>> {
> >>>> @@ -128,9 +143,12 @@ static void unmap_ptes(struct kvm *kvm, pmd_t *pmd,
> >>>> start_pte = pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, addr);
> >>>> do {
> >>>> if (!pte_none(*pte)) {
> >>>> + pte_t old_pte = *pte;
> >>>> kvm_set_pte(pte, __pte(0));
> >>>> - put_page(virt_to_page(pte));
> >>>
> >>> was this a bug beforehand that we released the page before we flushed
> >>> the TLB?
> >>
> >> I don't think so. TLB maintenance doesn't require the mapping to exist
> >> in the page tables (while the cache maintenance do).
> >>
> >
> > duh, the put_page is the ref counting on the page table itself, not the
> > underlying memory page. Forget what I asked.
> >
> >>>> kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa(kvm, addr);
> >>>> + if ((pte_val(old_pte) & PAGE_S2_DEVICE) != PAGE_S2_DEVICE)
> >>>> + kvm_flush_dcache_pte(old_pte);
> >>>
> >>> this is confusing me: We are only flushing the cache for cached stage-2
> >>> mappings? Weren't we trying to flush the cache for uncached mappings?
> >>> (we obviously also need flush a cached stage-2 mapping but where the
> >>> guest is mapping it as uncached, but we don't know that easily).
> >>>
> >>> Am I missing something completely here?
> >>
> >> I think you must be misreading something:
> >> - we want to invalidate mappings because the guest may have created an
> >> uncached mapping
> >
> > I don't quite understand: we are invalidating mappings because the page
> > is being swapped out (and the guest must fault if it tries to access it
> > again). Not because the guest may have created an uncached mapping,
> > that's just an aspect of the situation. Or am I thinking about this the
> > wrong way?
>
> My wording was quite ambiguous. Indeed, we're removing the mapping
> because the page is being evicted. In a perfect and ideal world (where
> the guest doesn't do anything silly and everything is cache coherent),
> we shouldn't have to do anything cache wise. But see below.
>
> >> - as we cannot know about the guest's uncached mappings, we flush things
> >> unconditionally (basically anything that is RAM).
> >
> > so isn't the problem that the host may have an invalid cached view of
> > the data, so we need to invalidate that view, not flush the invalid data
> > to RAM? Does the kernel take care of that somewhere else for a
> > cache-coherent IO subsystem?
>
> There is two potential problems:
>
> - The guest has created an uncached mapping, and you have a cache
> coherent IO subsystem: we need to invalidate the cached view. But since
> we don't know where that mapping is (as we don't track guest mappings),
> we must do a clean+invalidate in order not to corrupt cached mappings.
so here you have:
CACHE=dirty random old data
RAM=data that the guest wrote
now your IO subsystem will read from the cache, which is bad. But when
you do a clean+invalidate, you get:
CACHE=invalidated
RAM=dirty random old data
I still don't get it...
>
> - The guest has cached mappings (that's the usual case), and the IO
> subsystem is not cache-coherent. In this case, the kernel knows about
> this and will do the clean operation for us.
>
> The main problem is that we cannot identify any of these two cases: we
> don't know if the IO path is coherent or not, and we don't know about
> uncached mappings. The only safe thing to do is to perform the
> clean+invalidate, always.
>
> I wish we had a way to identify uncached mappings, That would save us a
> lot of over-maintenance and some very tricky games we play at the MMU level.
>
> Does the above make things clearer?
>
The clarification about the host doing the clearning for us for a
non-coherent cache system is perfectly clear, but as I say above, I
still don't quite get the other case.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
