Coming back to this, as it does bother me.
On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:04:40 +0000,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> To reduce MMU lock contention during dirty logging, all permission
> relaxation operations would be performed under read lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> index cafd5813c949..dd1f43fba4b0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -1063,6 +1063,54 @@ static int sanitise_mte_tags(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static bool fast_mark_writable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> + struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot, unsigned long fault_status)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + bool writable;
> + bool write_fault = kvm_is_write_fault(vcpu);
> + gfn_t gfn = fault_ipa >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + kvm_pfn_t pfn;
> + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> + bool logging_active = memslot_is_logging(memslot);
> + unsigned long fault_level = kvm_vcpu_trap_get_fault_level(vcpu);
> + unsigned long fault_granule;
> +
> + fault_granule = 1UL << ARM64_HW_PGTABLE_LEVEL_SHIFT(fault_level);
> +
> + /* Make sure the fault can be handled in the fast path.
> + * Only handle write permission fault on non-hugepage during dirty
> + * logging period.
> + */
> + if (fault_status != FSC_PERM || fault_granule != PAGE_SIZE
> + || !logging_active || !write_fault)
> + return false;
> +
> +
> + /* Pin the pfn to make sure it couldn't be freed and be resued for
> + * another gfn.
> + */
> + pfn = __gfn_to_pfn_memslot(memslot, gfn, true, NULL,
> + write_fault, &writable, NULL);
Why the requirement to be atomic? Once this returns, the page will
have an elevated refcount, atomic or not. Given that we're not in an
environment that requires atomicity (we're fully preemptible at this
stage), I wonder what this is achieving.
> + if (is_error_pfn(pfn) || !writable)
> + return false;
> +
> + read_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
You also dropped the hazarding against a concurrent MMU notifier. Why
is it safe to do so?
> + ret = kvm_pgtable_stage2_relax_perms(
> + vcpu->arch.hw_mmu->pgt, fault_ipa, PAGE_HYP);
> +
> + if (!ret) {
> + kvm_set_pfn_dirty(pfn);
> + mark_page_dirty_in_slot(kvm, memslot, gfn);
> + }
> + read_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> +
> + kvm_set_pfn_accessed(pfn);
> + kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot, unsigned long hva,
> unsigned long fault_status)
> @@ -1085,6 +1133,8 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot = KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_R;
> struct kvm_pgtable *pgt;
>
> + if (fast_mark_writable(vcpu, fault_ipa, memslot, fault_status))
> + return 0;
> fault_granule = 1UL << ARM64_HW_PGTABLE_LEVEL_SHIFT(fault_level);
> write_fault = kvm_is_write_fault(vcpu);
> exec_fault = kvm_vcpu_trap_is_exec_fault(vcpu);
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
