On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 05:23:08PM +0100, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> On 8/25/20 10:39 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Convert unmap_stage2_range() to use kvm_pgtable_stage2_unmap() instead
> > of walking the page-table directly.
> >
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > index 704b471a48ce..751ce2462765 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > @@ -39,6 +39,33 @@ static bool is_iomap(unsigned long flags)
> > return flags & KVM_S2PTE_FLAG_IS_IOMAP;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Release kvm_mmu_lock periodically if the memory region is large. Otherwise,
> > + * we may see kernel panics with CONFIG_DETECT_HUNG_TASK,
> > + * CONFIG_LOCKUP_DETECTOR, CONFIG_LOCKDEP. Additionally, holding the lock too
> > + * long will also starve other vCPUs. We have to also make sure that the page
> > + * tables are not freed while we released the lock.
> > + */
> > +#define stage2_apply_range(kvm, addr, end, fn, resched) \
> > +({ \
> > + int ret; \
> > + struct kvm *__kvm = (kvm); \
> > + bool __resched = (resched); \
> > + u64 next, __addr = (addr), __end = (end); \
> > + do { \
> > + struct kvm_pgtable *pgt = __kvm->arch.mmu.pgt; \
> > + if (!pgt) \
> > + break; \
>
> I'm 100% sure there's a reason why we've dropped the READ_ONCE, but it still looks
> to me like the compiler might decide to optimize by reading pgt once at the start
> of the loop and stashing it in a register. Would you mind explaining what I am
> missing?
The load always happens with the mmu_lock held, so I think it's not a
problem because it means that the pointer is stable.
spin_lock()/spin_unlock() imply compiler barriers.
> > + next = stage2_pgd_addr_end(__kvm, __addr, __end); \
> > + ret = fn(pgt, __addr, next - __addr); \
> > + if (ret) \
> > + break; \
> > + if (__resched && next != __end) \
> > + cond_resched_lock(&__kvm->mmu_lock); \
> > + } while (__addr = next, __addr != __end); \
> > + ret; \
> > +})
>
> This seems unusual to me. We have a non-trivial, multiline macro which calls
> cond_resched(), has 6 local variables, and is called from exactly one place.I am
> curious why we are not open coding the loop in __unmap_stage2_range() or using a
> function.
It's called from three places. That said, I think it's like this because in
an earlier life it was used as an iterator and therefore had to be a macro.
I can try moving it into a function instead.
Will
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
