On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 06:09:12PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 23:58:30 +0000,
> Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 11:35:01AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 03:45:47 +0000,
> > > Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Add a new stage2 function, kvm_pgtable_stage2_split(), for splitting a
> > > > range of huge pages. This will be used for eager-splitting huge pages
> > > > into PAGE_SIZE pages. The goal is to avoid having to split huge pages
> > > > on write-protection faults, and instead use this function to do it
> > > > ahead of time for large ranges (e.g., all guest memory in 1G chunks at
> > > > a time).
> > > >
> > > > No functional change intended. This new function will be used in a
> > > > subsequent commit.
> > >
> > > Same comment as before about the usefulness of this last sentence.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h | 30 +++++++
> > > > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c | 113 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 143 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > index b7b3fc0fa7a5..40e323a718fc 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> > > > @@ -665,6 +665,36 @@ bool kvm_pgtable_stage2_is_young(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr);
> > > > */
> > > > int kvm_pgtable_stage2_flush(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr, u64 size);
> > > >
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * kvm_pgtable_stage2_split() - Split a range of huge pages into leaf PTEs pointing
> > > > + * to PAGE_SIZE guest pages.
> > > > + * @pgt: Page-table structure initialised by kvm_pgtable_stage2_init().
> > > > + * @addr: Intermediate physical address from which to split.
> > > > + * @size: Size of the range.
> > > > + * @mc: Cache of pre-allocated and zeroed memory from which to allocate
> > > > + * page-table pages.
> > > > + * @mc_capacity: Number of pages in @mc.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @addr and the end (@addr + @size) are effectively aligned down and up to
> > > > + * the top level huge-page block size. This is an example using 1GB
> > > > + * huge-pages and 4KB granules.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * [---input range---]
> > > > + * : :
> > > > + * [--1G block pte--][--1G block pte--][--1G block pte--][--1G block pte--]
> > > > + * : :
> > > > + * [--2MB--][--2MB--][--2MB--][--2MB--]
> > > > + * : :
> > > > + * [ ][ ][:][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][:][ ][ ][ ]
> > > > + * : :
> > >
> > > So here, what alignment do we effectively get?
> > >
> >
> > The function tries to split any block that overlaps with the input
> > range. Here's another example that might be more helpful:
> >
> > * [---input range---]
> > * : :
> > * [--1G block pte--][--2MB--][--2MB--][--1G block pte--][--1G block pte--]
> >
> > is split like this:
> >
> > * [--1G block pte--][--2MB--][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][--1G block pte--]
> > <-------split range------->
> >
> > I think I will just use this new description instead.
> >
> > > > + * Return: 0 on success, negative error code on failure. Note that
> > > > + * kvm_pgtable_stage2_split() is best effort: it tries to break as many
> > > > + * blocks in the input range as allowed by @mc_capacity.
> > > > + */
> > > > +int kvm_pgtable_stage2_split(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr, u64 size,
> > > > + void *mc, u64 mc_capacity);
> > > > +
> > > > /**
> > > > * kvm_pgtable_walk() - Walk a page-table.
> > > > * @pgt: Page-table structure initialised by kvm_pgtable_*_init().
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > index 6bdfcb671b32..3149b98d1701 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> > > > @@ -1259,6 +1259,119 @@ kvm_pte_t *kvm_pgtable_stage2_create_unlinked(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt,
> > > > return pgtable;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +struct stage2_split_data {
> > > > + struct kvm_s2_mmu *mmu;
> > > > + void *memcache;
> > > > + u64 mc_capacity;
> > >
> > > Why isn't this a pointer to a *real* memcache structure?
> > >
> >
> > Mainly because I wanted this function to be like the other pgtable.c
> > funtions that use opaque pointers to handle the vhe and nvhe cases. vhe
> > uses "struct kvm_mmu_memory_cache" while nvhe uses "struct hyp_pool".
> > This series only implements the vhe case but I didn't want to restrict
> > kvm_pgtable_stage2_split() to vhe just because of this. Just in case, I
> > have not tried it in nvhe.
>
> Do you really mean nVHE here? or do you actually mean pKVM? The former
> shouldn't be any different from VHE (the PT code runs in the same
> context, give or take), and it is only the latter that is using
> something else altogether.
>
> And since pKVM cannot really do page splitting in the normal KVM
> sense, this code shouldn't even be there!
>
I see, then this should definitely be using "struct
kvm_mmu_memory_cache". Thanks for the info.
> >
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Get the number of page-tables needed to replace a block with a
> > > > + * fully populated tree, up to the PTE level, at particular level.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline int stage2_block_get_nr_page_tables(u32 level)
> > >
> > > Please drop the inline. The compiler will figure it out.
> > >
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(level < KVM_PGTABLE_MIN_BLOCK_LEVEL ||
> > > > + level >= KVM_PGTABLE_MAX_LEVELS))
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > Move this check to the 'default' case below.
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + switch (level) {
> > > > + case 1:
> > > > + return PTRS_PER_PTE + 1;
> > > > + case 2:
> > > > + return 1;
> > >
> > > This is odd. Replacing a block by a table always requires
> > > 'PTRS_PER_PTE + 1' pages. Why 1? If this is some special treatment for
> > > level-2 mappings, please spell it out.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand. I'm interpreting "level=X" as in "level X
> > entry". More specifically, using PAGE_SIZE=4096 as an example:
> >
> > a level 3 entry (a PTE): a 4096 block needs 0 page-table pages
> > a level 2 entry: a 2M block needs 1 page-table pages
> > a level 1 entry: a 1G block needs 512+1 page-table pages
>
> Ah, gotcha. I was reasoning at the block level, not at the entry
> level. Maybe some extra idiot-proof explanation would help here for
> the next time I look at this after having paged it out.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > + case 3:
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > + default:
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + };
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int stage2_split_walker(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx,
> > > > + enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags visit)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct kvm_pgtable_mm_ops *mm_ops = ctx->mm_ops;
> > > > + struct stage2_split_data *data = ctx->arg;
> > > > + kvm_pte_t pte = ctx->old, new, *childp;
> > > > + enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot;
> > > > + void *mc = data->memcache;
> > > > + u32 level = ctx->level;
> > > > + bool force_pte;
> > > > + int nr_pages;
> > > > + u64 phys;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* No huge-pages exist at the last level */
> > > > + if (level == KVM_PGTABLE_MAX_LEVELS - 1)
> > > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > Why the check for level 3 in the previous function if never get there?
> > >
> >
> > Was trying to make stage2_block_get_nr_page_tables() useful for other
> > cases. It's still correct for other cases to ask how many page-table
> > pages are needed for a PTE (stage2_block_get_nr_page_tables(3) -> 0).
>
> Right. I don't mind either way, but the double check somehow tickled
> me.
>
> > > > +
> > > > + /* We only split valid block mappings */
> > > > + if (!kvm_pte_valid(pte))
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + nr_pages = stage2_block_get_nr_page_tables(level);
> > > > + if (nr_pages < 0)
> > > > + return nr_pages;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (data->mc_capacity >= nr_pages) {
> > > > + /* Build a tree mapped down to the PTE granularity. */
> > > > + force_pte = true;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Don't force PTEs. This requires a single page of PMDs at the
> > > > + * PUD level, or a single page of PTEs at the PMD level. If we
> > > > + * are at the PUD level, the PTEs will be created recursively.
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > I don't understand how you reach this 'single page' conclusion. You
> > > need to explain why you get there.
> >
> > Ack, will expand it.
>
> Thanks. The above explanation you gave helped, so something long these
> lines would be good.
>
> Cheers,
>
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
