On Sat, Mar 25, 2023, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 12:39:59PM +0100, Mathias Krause wrote: > > On 23.03.23 23:50, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 02:37:25 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote: > > >> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230201194604.11135-1-minipli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > >> > > >> This series is the fourth iteration of resurrecting the missing pieces of > > >> Paolo's previous attempt[1] to avoid needless MMU roots unloading. > > >> > > >> It's incorporating Sean's feedback to v3 and rebased on top of > > >> kvm-x86/next, namely commit d8708b80fa0e ("KVM: Change return type of > > >> kvm_arch_vm_ioctl() to "int""). > > >> > > >> [...] > > > > > > Applied 1 and 5 to kvm-x86 mmu, and the rest to kvm-x86 misc, thanks! > > > > > > [1/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Avoid indirect call for get_cr3 > > > https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/2fdcc1b32418 > > > [2/6] KVM: x86: Do not unload MMU roots when only toggling CR0.WP with TDP enabled > > > https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/01b31714bd90 > > > [3/6] KVM: x86: Ignore CR0.WP toggles in non-paging mode > > > https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/e40bcf9f3a18 > > > [4/6] KVM: x86: Make use of kvm_read_cr*_bits() when testing bits > > > https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/74cdc836919b > > > [5/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Fix comment typo > > > https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/50f13998451e > > > [6/6] KVM: VMX: Make CR0.WP a guest owned bit > > > https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/fb509f76acc8 > > > > Thanks a lot, Sean! > > > > As this is a huge performance fix for us, we'd like to get it integrated > > into current stable kernels as well -- not without having the changes > > get some wider testing, of course, i.e. not before they end up in a > > non-rc version released by Linus. But I already did a backport to 5.4 to > > get a feeling how hard it would be and for the impact it has on older > > kernels. > > > > Using the 'ssdd 10 50000' test I used before, I get promising results > > there as well. Without the patches it takes 9.31s, while with them we're > > down to 4.64s. Taking into account that this is the runtime of a > > workload in a VM that gets cut in half, I hope this qualifies as stable > > material, as it's a huge performance fix. > > > > Greg, what's your opinion on it? Original series here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230322013731.102955-1-minipli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I'll leave the judgement call up to the KVM maintainers, as they are the > ones that need to ack any KVM patch added to stable trees. These are quite risky to backport. E.g. we botched patch 6[*], and my initial fix also had a subtle bug. There have also been quite a few KVM MMU changes since 5.4, so it's possible that an edge case may exist in 5.4 that doesn't exist in mainline. I'm not totally opposed to the idea since our tests _should_ be provide solid coverage, e.g. existing tests caught my subtle bug, but I don't think we should backport these without a solid usecase, as there is a fairly high risk of breaking random KVM users that wouldn't see any meaningful benefit. In other words, who cares enough about the performance of running grsecurity kernels in VMs to want these backported, but doesn't have the resources to maintain (or pay someone to maintain) their own host kernel? [*] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230405002608.418442-1-seanjc%40google.com
