On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 09:53:45PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022, Oliver Upton wrote: > > Use RCU to safely walk the stage-2 page tables in parallel. Acquire and > > release the RCU read lock when traversing the page tables. Defer the > > freeing of table memory to an RCU callback. Indirect the calls into RCU > > and provide stubs for hypervisor code, as RCU is not available in such a > > context. > > > > The RCU protection doesn't amount to much at the moment, as readers are > > already protected by the read-write lock (all walkers that free table > > memory take the write lock). Nonetheless, a subsequent change will > > futher relax the locking requirements around the stage-2 MMU, thereby > > depending on RCU. > > Two somewhat off-topic questions (because I'm curious): Worth asking! > 1. Are there plans to enable "fast" page faults on ARM? E.g. to fixup access > faults (handle_access_fault()) and/or write-protection faults without acquiring > mmu_lock? I don't have any plans personally. OTOH, adding support for read-side access faults is trivial, I just didn't give it much thought as most large-scale implementations have FEAT_HAFDBS (hardware access flag management). > 2. If the answer to (1) is "yes!", what's the plan to protect the lockless walks > for the RCU-less hypervisor code? If/when we are worried about fault serialization in the lowvisor I was thinking something along the lines of disabling interrupts and using IPIs as barriers before freeing removed table memory, crudely giving the same protection as RCU. -- Thanks, Oliver _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
