From: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
Taking a write lock on a pfncache will be disruptive if the cache is
heavily used (which only requires a read lock). Hence, in the MMU notifier
callback, take read locks on caches to check for a match; only taking a
write lock to actually perform an invalidation (after a another check).
Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
v10:
- New in this version.
---
virt/kvm/pfncache.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/virt/kvm/pfncache.c b/virt/kvm/pfncache.c
index ae822bff812f..70394d7c9a38 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/pfncache.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/pfncache.c
@@ -29,14 +29,30 @@ void gfn_to_pfn_cache_invalidate_start(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start,
spin_lock(&kvm->gpc_lock);
list_for_each_entry(gpc, &kvm->gpc_list, list) {
- write_lock_irq(&gpc->lock);
+ read_lock_irq(&gpc->lock);
/* Only a single page so no need to care about length */
if (gpc->valid && !is_error_noslot_pfn(gpc->pfn) &&
gpc->uhva >= start && gpc->uhva < end) {
- gpc->valid = false;
+ read_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock);
+
+ /*
+ * There is a small window here where the cache could
+ * be modified, and invalidation would no longer be
+ * necessary. Hence check again whether invalidation
+ * is still necessary once the write lock has been
+ * acquired.
+ */
+
+ write_lock_irq(&gpc->lock);
+ if (gpc->valid && !is_error_noslot_pfn(gpc->pfn) &&
+ gpc->uhva >= start && gpc->uhva < end)
+ gpc->valid = false;
+ write_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock);
+ continue;
}
- write_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock);
+
+ read_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock);
}
spin_unlock(&kvm->gpc_lock);
}
--
2.39.2
