On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:25:18AM +0000, David Matlack wrote:
> In order to split a huge page we need to know what access bits to assign
> to the role of the new child page table. This can't be easily derived
> from the huge page SPTE itself since KVM applies its own access policies
> on top, such as for HugePage NX.
>
> We could walk the guest page tables to determine the correct access
> bits, but that is difficult to plumb outside of a vCPU fault context.
> Instead, we can store the original access bits for each leaf SPTE
> alongside the GFN in the gfns array. The access bits only take up 3
> bits, which leaves 61 bits left over for gfns, which is more than
> enough. So this change does not require any additional memory.
I have a pure question on why eager page split needs to worry on hugepage
nx..
IIUC that was about forbidden huge page being mapped as executable. So
afaiu the only missing bit that could happen if we copy over the huge page
ptes is the executable bit.
But then? I think we could get a page fault on fault->exec==true on the
split small page (because when we copy over it's cleared, even though the
page can actually be executable), but it should be well resolved right
after that small page fault.
The thing is IIUC this is a very rare case, IOW, it should mostly not
happen in 99% of the use case? And there's a slight penalty when it
happens, but only perf-wise.
As I'm not really fluent with the code base, perhaps I missed something?
>
> In order to keep the access bit cache in sync with the guest, we have to
> extend FNAME(sync_page) to also update the access bits.
Besides sync_page(), I also see that in mmu_set_spte() there's a path that
we will skip the rmap_add() if existed:
if (!was_rmapped) {
WARN_ON_ONCE(ret == RET_PF_SPURIOUS);
kvm_update_page_stats(vcpu->kvm, level, 1);
rmap_add(vcpu, slot, sptep, gfn);
}
I didn't check, but it's not obvious whether the sync_page() change here
will cover all of the cases, hence raise this up too.
>
> Now that the gfns array caches more information than just GFNs, rename
> it to shadowed_translation.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h | 15 +++++++++++++--
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h | 7 +++++--
> 4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index f72e80178ffc..0f5a36772bdc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -694,7 +694,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>
> struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache mmu_pte_list_desc_cache;
> struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache mmu_shadow_page_cache;
> - struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache mmu_gfn_array_cache;
> + struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache mmu_shadowed_translation_cache;
I'd called it with a shorter name.. :) maybe mmu_shadowed_info_cache? No
strong opinion.
> struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache mmu_page_header_cache;
>
> /*
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
> index b6e22ba9c654..c5b8ee625df7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu_internal.h
> @@ -32,6 +32,11 @@ extern bool dbg;
>
> typedef u64 __rcu *tdp_ptep_t;
>
> +struct shadowed_translation_entry {
> + u64 access:3;
> + u64 gfn:56;
Why 56?
> +};
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
