On 01/08/2015 03:32 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 07:01:10PM -0800, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>> On 01/07/2015 05:05 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:28:08PM -0800, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>>>> This patch adds the same support for PUD huge page as for PMD. Huge PUD is
>>>> write protected for initial memory region write protection. Code to dissolve
>>>> huge PUD is supported in user_mem_abort(). At this time this code has not been
>>>> tested, but similar approach to current ARMv8 page logging test is in work,
>>>> limiting kernel memory and mapping in 1 or 2GB into Guest address space on a
>>>> 4k page/48 bit host, some host kernel test code needs to be added to detect
>>>> page fault to this region and side step general processing. Also similar to
>>>> PMD case all pages in range are marked dirty when PUD entry is cleared.
>>>
>>> the note about this code being untested shouldn't be part of the commit
>>> message but after the '---' separater or in the cover letter I think.
>>
>> Ah ok.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mario Smarduch <m.smarduch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h | 8 +++++
>>>> arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h | 9 +++++
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-hwdef.h | 3 ++
>>>> 4 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h
>>>> index dda0046..703d04d 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h
>>>> @@ -133,6 +133,14 @@ static inline bool kvm_s2pmd_readonly(pmd_t *pmd)
>>>> return (pmd_val(*pmd) & L_PMD_S2_RDWR) == L_PMD_S2_RDONLY;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static inline void kvm_set_s2pud_readonly(pud_t *pud)
>>>> +{
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline bool kvm_s2pud_readonly(pud_t *pud)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return false;
>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> /* Open coded p*d_addr_end that can deal with 64bit addresses */
>>>> #define kvm_pgd_addr_end(addr, end) \
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>>>> index 59003df..35840fb 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
>>>> @@ -109,6 +109,55 @@ void stage2_dissolve_pmd(struct kvm *kvm, phys_addr_t addr, pmd_t *pmd)
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * stage2_find_pud() - find a PUD entry
>>>> + * @kvm: pointer to kvm structure.
>>>> + * @addr: IPA address
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Return address of PUD entry or NULL if not allocated.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static pud_t *stage2_find_pud(struct kvm *kvm, phys_addr_t addr)
>>>
>>> why can't you reuse stage2_get_pud here?
>>
>> stage2_get_* allocate intermediate tables, when they're called
>> you know intermediate tables are needed to install a pmd or pte.
>> But currently there is no way to tell we faulted in a PUD
>> region, this code just checks if a PUD is set, and not
>> allocate intermediate tables along the way.
>
> hmmm, but if we get here it means that we are faulting on an address, so
> we need to map something at that address regardless, so I don't see the
> problem in using stage2_get_pud.
>
>>
>> Overall not sure if this is in preparation for a new huge page (PUD sized)?
>> Besides developing a custom test, not sure how to use this
>> and determine we fault in a PUD region? Generic 'gup'
>> code does handle PUDs but perhaps some arch. has PUD sized
>> huge pages.
>>
>
> When Marc and I discussed this we came to the conclusion that we wanted
> code to support this code path for when huge PUDs were suddently used,
> but now when I see the code, I am realizing that adding huge PUD support
> on the Stage-2 level requires a lot of changes to this file, so I really
> don't think we need to handle it at the point after all.
>
>>>
>>>> +{
>>>> + pgd_t *pgd;
>>>> +
>>>> + pgd = kvm->arch.pgd + pgd_index(addr);
>>>> + if (pgd_none(*pgd))
>>>> + return NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> + return pud_offset(pgd, addr);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * stage2_dissolve_pud() - clear and flush huge PUD entry
>>>> + * @kvm: pointer to kvm structure.
>>>> + * @addr IPA
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Function clears a PUD entry, flushes addr 1st and 2nd stage TLBs. Marks all
>>>> + * pages in the range dirty.
>>>> + */
>>>> +void stage2_dissolve_pud(struct kvm *kvm, phys_addr_t addr)
>>>> +{
>>>> + pud_t *pud;
>>>> + gfn_t gfn;
>>>> + long i;
>>>> +
>>>> + pud = stage2_find_pud(kvm, addr);
>>>> + if (pud && !pud_none(*pud) && kvm_pud_huge(*pud)) {
>>>
>>> I'm just thinking here, why do we need to check if we get a valid pud
>>> back here, but we don't need the equivalent check in dissolve_pmd from
>>> patch 7?
>>
>> kvm_pud_huge() doesn't check bit 0 for invalid entry, but
>> pud_none() is not the right way to check either, maybe pud_bad()
>> first. Nothing is done in patch 7 since the pmd is retrieved from
>> stage2_get_pmd().
>>
>
> hmmm, but stage2_get_pmd() can return a NULL pointer if you have the
> IOMAP flag set...
>
>>>
>>> I think the rationale is that it should never happen because we never
>>> call these functions with the logging and iomap flags at the same
>>> time...
>>
>> I'm little lost here, not sure how it's related to above.
>> But I think a VFIO device will have a memslot and
>> it would be possible to enable logging. But to what
>> end I'm not sure.
>>
>
> As I said above, if you call the set_s2pte function with the IOMAP and
> LOGGING flags set, then you'll end up in a situation where you can get a
> NULL pointer back from stage2_get_pmd() but you're never checking
> against that.
I see what you're saying now.
>
> Now, this raises an interesting point, we have now added code that
> prevents faults from ever happening on device maps, but introducing a
> path here where the user can set logging on a memslot with device memory
> regions, which introduces write faults on such regions. My gut feeling
> is that we should avoid that from ever happening, and not allow this
> function to be called with both flags set.
Maybe kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region() can check if
KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES is being enabled for an IO region
and don't allow it.
- Mario
>
>>>
>>>> + pud_clear(pud);
>>>> + kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa(kvm, addr);
>>>> + put_page(virt_to_page(pud));
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>>>> + gfn = (addr & PUD_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Mark all pages in PUD range dirty, in case other
>>>> + * CPUs are writing to it.
>>>> + */
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PUD * PTRS_PER_PMD; i++)
>>>> + mark_page_dirty(kvm, gfn + i);
>>>> +#endif
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static int mmu_topup_memory_cache(struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *cache,
>>>> int min, int max)
>>>> {
>>>> @@ -761,6 +810,13 @@ static int stage2_set_pte(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache *cache,
>>>> unsigned long iomap = flags & KVM_S2PTE_FLAG_IS_IOMAP;
>>>> unsigned long logging_active = flags & KVM_S2PTE_FLAG_LOGGING_ACTIVE;
>>>>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * While dirty page logging - dissolve huge PUD, then continue on to
>>>> + * allocate page.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (logging_active)
>>>> + stage2_dissolve_pud(kvm, addr);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I know I asked for this, but what's the purpose really when we never set
>>> a huge stage-2 pud, shouldn't we just WARN/BUG if we encounter one?
>>>
>>> Marc, you may have some thoughts here...
>>
>> Not sure myself what's the vision for PUD support.
>>
>
> with 4-level paging on aarch64, we use PUDs but we haven't added any
> code to insert huge PUDs (only regular ones) on the stage-2 page tables,
> even if the host kernel happens to suddenly support huge PUDs for the
> stage-1 page tables, which is what I think we were trying to address.
>
>
> So I really think we can drop this whole patch. As I said, really sorry
> about this one!
>
> -Christoffer
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
