On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 04:37:12PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 10/04/18 16:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 05:05:40PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:51:19AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> I think we also need to update kvm->arch.vttbr before updating
> >>> kvm->arch.vmid_gen, otherwise another CPU can come in, see that the
> >>> vmid_gen is up-to-date, jump to hyp, and program a stale VTTBR (with the
> >>> old VMID).
> >>>
> >>> With the smp_wmb() and update of kvm->arch.vmid_gen moved to the end of
> >>> the critical section, I think that works, modulo using READ_ONCE() and
> >>> WRITE_ONCE() to ensure single-copy-atomicity of the fields we access
> >>> locklessly.
> >>
> >> Indeed, you're right. I would look something like this, then:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> >> index 2e43f9d42bd5..6cb08995e7ff 100644
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> >> @@ -450,7 +450,9 @@ void force_vm_exit(const cpumask_t *mask)
> >> */
> >> static bool need_new_vmid_gen(struct kvm *kvm)
> >> {
> >> - return unlikely(kvm->arch.vmid_gen != atomic64_read(&kvm_vmid_gen));
> >> + u64 current_vmid_gen = atomic64_read(&kvm_vmid_gen);
> >> + smp_rmb(); /* Orders read of kvm_vmid_gen and kvm->arch.vmid */
> >> + return unlikely(READ_ONCE(kvm->arch.vmid_gen) != current_vmid_gen);
> >> }
> >>
> >> /**
> >> @@ -500,7 +502,6 @@ static void update_vttbr(struct kvm *kvm)
> >> kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_flush_vm_context);
> >> }
> >>
> >> - kvm->arch.vmid_gen = atomic64_read(&kvm_vmid_gen);
> >> kvm->arch.vmid = kvm_next_vmid;
> >> kvm_next_vmid++;
> >> kvm_next_vmid &= (1 << kvm_vmid_bits) - 1;
> >> @@ -509,7 +510,10 @@ static void update_vttbr(struct kvm *kvm)
> >> pgd_phys = virt_to_phys(kvm->arch.pgd);
> >> BUG_ON(pgd_phys & ~VTTBR_BADDR_MASK);
> >> vmid = ((u64)(kvm->arch.vmid) << VTTBR_VMID_SHIFT) & VTTBR_VMID_MASK(kvm_vmid_bits);
> >> - kvm->arch.vttbr = pgd_phys | vmid;
> >> + WRITE_ONCE(kvm->arch.vttbr, pgd_phys | vmid);
> >> +
> >> + smp_wmb(); /* Ensure vttbr update is observed before vmid_gen update */
> >> + kvm->arch.vmid_gen = atomic64_read(&kvm_vmid_gen);
> >>
> >> spin_unlock(&kvm_vmid_lock);
> >> }
> >
> > I think that's right, yes.
> >
> > We could replace the smp_{r,w}mb() barriers with an acquire of the
> > kvm_vmid_gen and a release of kvm->arch.vmid_gen, but if we're really
> > trying to optimize things there are larger algorithmic changes necessary
> > anyhow.
> >
> >> It's probably easier to convince ourselves about the correctness of
> >> Marc's code using a rwlock instead, though. Thoughts?
> >
> > I believe that Marc's preference was the rwlock; I have no preference
> > either way.
>
> I don't mind either way. If you can be bothered to write a proper commit
> log for this, I'll take it.
You've already done the work, and your patch is easier to read, so let's
just go ahead with that.
I was just curious to which degree my original implementation was
broken; was I trying to achieve something impossible or was I just
writing buggy code. Seems the latter. Oh well.
> What I'd really want is Shannon to indicate
> whether or not this solves the issue he was seeing.
>
Agreed, would like to see that too.
Thanks (and sorry for being noisy),
-Christoffer
