On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:14 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 10/03/21 01:30, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > > index 50ef757c5586..f0c99fa04ef2 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > > @@ -323,7 +323,18 @@ static void handle_removed_tdp_mmu_page(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *pt,
> > > cpu_relax();
> > > }
> > > } else {
> > > + /*
> > > + * If the SPTE is not MMU-present, there is no backing
> > > + * page associated with the SPTE and so no side effects
> > > + * that need to be recorded, and exclusive ownership of
> > > + * mmu_lock ensures the SPTE can't be made present.
> > > + * Note, zapping MMIO SPTEs is also unnecessary as they
> > > + * are guarded by the memslots generation, not by being
> > > + * unreachable.
> > > + */
> > > old_child_spte = READ_ONCE(*sptep);
> > > + if (!is_shadow_present_pte(old_child_spte))
> > > + continue;
> > > /*
> > > * Marking the SPTE as a removed SPTE is not
> >
> > Ben, do you plan to make this path take mmu_lock for read? If so, this
> > wouldn't be too useful IIUC.
>
> I can see kvm_mmu_zap_all_fast()->kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_all() moving to a shared-mode
> flow, but I don't think we'll ever want to move away from exclusive-mode zapping
> for kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->kvm_mmu_zap_all()->kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_all(). In
> that case, the VM is dead or dying; freeing memory should be done as quickly as
> possible.
Yeah, as Sean said, zapping under the MMU lock in write mode probably
shouldn't go away, even if we find we're able to do it in read mode in
some flows.
This optimization also makes me think we could also skip the
__handle_changed_spte call in the read mode case if the SPTE change
was !PRESENT -> REMOVED.
