Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86/mmu: Ensure TLBs are flushed when yielding during NX zapping

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:15 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > > > It could be fixed by forbidding kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_gfn_range from
> > > > yielding. Since we should only need to zap one SPTE, the yield should
> > > > not be needed within the kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_gfn_range call. To ensure
> > > > that only one SPTE is zapped we would have to specify the root though.
> > > > Otherwise we could end up zapping all the entries for the same GFN
> > > > range under an unrelated root.
> > >
> > > Hmm, I originally did exactly that, but changed my mind because this zaps far
> > > more than 1 SPTE.  This is zapping a SP that could be huge, but is not, which
> > > means it's guaranteed to have a non-zero number of child SPTEs.  The worst case
> > > scenario is that SP is a PUD (potential 1gb page) and the leafs are 4k SPTEs.
> >
> > It's true that there are potentially 512^2 child sptes, but the code
> > to clear those after the single PUD spte is cleared doesn't yield
> > anyway. If the TDP MMU is only  operating with one root (as we would
> > expect in most cases), there should only be one chance for it to
> > yield.
>
> Ah, right, I was thinking all the iterative flows yielded.  Disallowing
> kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_gfn_range() from yielding in this case does seem like the best
> fix.  Any objection to me sending v2 with that?

That sounds good to me.

>
> > I've considered how we could allow the recursive changed spte handlers
> > to yield, but it gets complicated quite fast because the caller needs
> > to know if it yielded and reset the TDP iterator to the root, and
> > there are some cases (mmu notifiers + vCPU path) where yielding is not
> > desirable.
>
> Urgh, yeah, seems like we'd quickly end up with a mess resembling the legacy MMU
> iterators.
>
> > >
> > > But, I didn't consider the interplay between invalid_list and the TDP MMU
> > > yielding.  Hrm.



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux