On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 4:05 PM David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 11:59:00AM -0800, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:58 AM Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 14:41:14 -0800
> > > Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Add pages in split_shadow_page_cache to the global counter
> > > > kvm_total_unused_cached_pages. These pages will be freed by MMU shrinker
> > > > in future commit.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 7 +++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > > index df8dcb7e5de7..0ebb8a2eaf47 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > > @@ -6149,7 +6149,9 @@ static void mmu_free_vm_memory_caches(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > {
> > > > kvm_mmu_free_memory_cache(&kvm->arch.split_desc_cache);
> > > > kvm_mmu_free_memory_cache(&kvm->arch.split_page_header_cache);
> > > > - kvm_mmu_free_memory_cache(&kvm->arch.split_shadow_page_cache);
> > > > + mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
> > > > + mmu_free_sp_memory_cache(&kvm->arch.split_shadow_page_cache);
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&kvm->slots_lock);
> > >
> > > Taking the lock of the calling path in the layer of cache topping/free layer
> > > seems off.
> > >
> > > My vote goes to have a lock for each cache and take the lock of the cache when
> > > topping/free the cache. It is more self-contained and architecturally nice.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, this can be one way. However, in future patches when I am adding
> > per NUMA node cache, it will add up a lot of locks for the same code
> > path before a topup. In split huge page case we know what NUMA node we
> > need to allocate from so we can fine tune which lock to take but in
> > fault path code we don't know what NUMA node the page will be coming
> > from so we need to topup all of the NUMA caches. Having a single lock
> > simplifies code a little bit.
> >
> > I agree with you on being more self-contained. I will wait for others
> > to also chime in on this and go from there.
>
> As a general rule, please only added locking when it's needed. Adding
> the lock in this commit is just confusing.
>
> But that aside, I don't think acquiring the slots lock is even needed in
> this commit.
Correction: even needed in the *next* commit
> mmu_free_vm_memory_caches() is never called while the the
> VM is on vm_list. i.e. This can never race with the shrinker.
>
> If you want to be paranoid you can add a WARN to ensure that stays true
> going forward:
>
> /* ... comment ... */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!list_empty(&kvm->vm_list));
