On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 03:27:18PM -0800, Ricardo Koller wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 03:03:42PM -0800, Ricardo Koller wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 08:54:52PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
[...]
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > index d1f309128118..9c42eff6d42e 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > @@ -1267,6 +1267,80 @@ static int stage2_create_removed(kvm_pte_t *ptep, u64 phys, u32 level,
> > > > return __kvm_pgtable_visit(&data, mm_ops, ptep, level);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +struct stage2_split_data {
> > > > + struct kvm_s2_mmu *mmu;
> > > > + void *memcache;
> > > > + struct kvm_pgtable_mm_ops *mm_ops;
> > >
> > > You can also get at mm_ops through kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx
> > >
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static int stage2_split_walker(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx,
> > > > + enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags visit)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct stage2_split_data *data = ctx->arg;
> > > > + struct kvm_pgtable_mm_ops *mm_ops = data->mm_ops;
> > > > + kvm_pte_t pte = ctx->old, attr, new;
> > > > + enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot;
> > > > + void *mc = data->memcache;
> > > > + u32 level = ctx->level;
> > > > + u64 phys;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_pgtable_walk_shared(ctx)))
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Nothing to split at the last level */
> > > > + if (level == KVM_PGTABLE_MAX_LEVELS - 1)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* We only split valid block mappings */
> > > > + if (!kvm_pte_valid(pte) || kvm_pte_table(pte, ctx->level))
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + phys = kvm_pte_to_phys(pte);
> > > > + prot = kvm_pgtable_stage2_pte_prot(pte);
> > > > + stage2_set_prot_attr(data->mmu->pgt, prot, &attr);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Eager page splitting is best-effort, so we can ignore the error.
> > > > + * The returned PTE (new) will be valid even if this call returns
> > > > + * error: new will be a single (big) block PTE. The only issue is
> > > > + * that it will affect dirty logging performance, as the huge-pages
> > > > + * will have to be split on fault, and so we WARN.
> > > > + */
> > > > + WARN_ON(stage2_create_removed(&new, phys, level, attr, mc, mm_ops));
> > >
> > > I don't believe we should warn in this case, at least not
> > > unconditionally. ENOMEM is an expected outcome, for example.
> >
> > Given that "eager page splitting" is best-effort, the error must be
> > ignored somewhere: either here or by the caller (in mmu.c). It seems
> > that ignoring the error here is not a very good idea.
>
> Actually, ignoring the error here simplifies the error handling.
> stage2_create_removed() is best-effort; here's an example. If
> stage2_create_removed() was called to split a 1G block PTE, and it
> wasn't able to split all 2MB blocks, it would return ENOMEM and a valid
> PTE pointing to a tree like this:
>
> [---------1GB-------------]
> : :
> [--2MB--][--2MB--][--2MB--]
> : :
> [ ][ ][ ]
>
> If we returned ENOMEM instead of ignoring the error, we would have to
> clean all the intermediate state. But stage2_create_removed() is
> designed to always return a valid PTE, even if the tree is not fully
> split (as above). So, there's no really need to clean it: it's a valid
> tree. Moreover, this valid tree would result in better dirty logging
> performance as it already has some 2M blocks split into 4K pages.
I have no issue with installing a partially-populated table, but
unconditionally ignoring the return code and marching onwards seems
dangerous. If you document the behavior of -ENOMEM on
stage2_create_removed() and return early for anything else it may read a
bit better.
--
Thanks,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
