On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 05:45:40PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 02.05.23 17:36, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 11:32:57AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > How does s390 avoid mmu notifiers without having lots of problems?? It > > > > is not really optional to hook the invalidations if you need to build > > > > a shadow page table.. > > > > > > Totally no idea on s390 details, but.. per my read above, if the firmware > > > needs to make sure the page is always available (so no way to fault it in > > > on demand), which means a longterm pinning seems appropriate here. > > > > > > Then if pinned a must, there's no need for mmu notifiers (as the page will > > > simply not be invalidated anyway)? > > > > And what if someone deliberately changes the mapping? memory hotplug > > in the VM, or whatever? > > Besides s390 not supporting memory hotplug in VMs (yet): if the guest wants > a different guest physical address, I guess that's the problem of the guest, > and it can update it: > > KVM_S390_ZPCIOP_REG_AEN is triggered from QEMU via > s390_pci_kvm_aif_enable(), triggered by the guest via a special instruction. > > If the hypervisor changes the mapping, it's just the same thing as mixing > e.g. MADV_DONTNEED with longterm pinning in vfio: don't do it. And if you do > it, you get to keep the mess you created for your VM. > > Linux will make sure to not change the mapping: for example, page migration > of a pinned page will fail. > > But maybe I am missing something important here. It missses the general architectural point why we have all these shootdown mechanims in other places - plares are not supposed to make these kinds of assumptions. When the userspace unplugs the memory from KVM or unmaps it from VFIO it is not still being accessed by the kernel. Functional bug or not, it is inconsistent with how this is designed to work. Jason
