On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 2:27 PM Kalra, Ashish <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Marc,
>
> On 1/5/2023 4:08 PM, Marc Orr wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 1:49 PM Kalra, Ashish <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Boris,
> >>
> >> On 12/19/2022 2:08 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 09:00:26AM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> >>>> We implemented this approach for v7, but it causes a fairly significant
> >>>> performance regression, particularly for the case for npages > 1 which
> >>>> this change was meant to optimize.
> >>>>
> >>>> I still need to dig in a big but I'm guessing it's related to flushing
> >>>> behavior.
> >>>
> >>> Well, AFAICT, change_page_attr_set_clr() flushes once at the end.
> >>>
> >>> Don't you need to flush when you modify the direct map?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Milan onward, there is H/W support for coherency between mappings of the
> >> same physical page with different encryption keys, so AFAIK, there
> >> should be no need to flush during page state transitions, where we
> >> invoke these direct map interface functions for re-mapping/invalidating
> >> pages.
> >>
> >> I don't know if there is any other reason to flush after modifying
> >> the direct map ?
> >
> > Isn't the Milan coherence feature (SME_COHERENT?) about the caches --
> > not the TLBs? And isn't the flushing being discussed here about the
> > TLBs?
>
> Actually, the flush does both cache and TLB flushing.
>
> Both cpa_flush() and cpa_flush_all() will also do cache flushing if
> cache argument is not NULL. As in this case, no page caching attributes
> are being changed so there is no need to do cache flushing.
>
> But TLB flushing (as PTE is updated) is still required and will be done.
Ah, got it now. Thanks for explaining. (I should've looked at the code
a bit closer.)
> > Also, I thought that Mingwei Zhang <[email protected]> found that the
> > Milan SEV coherence feature was basically unusable in Linux because it
> > only works across CPUs. It does not extend to IO (e.g., CPU caches
> > need to be flushed prior to free'ing a SEV VM's private address and
> > reallocating that location to a device driver to be used for IO). My
> > understanding of this feature and its limitations may be too coarse.
> > But I think we should be very careful about relying on this feature as
> > it is implemented in Milan.
> >
> > That being said, I guess I could see an argument to rely on the
> > feature here, since we're not deallocating the memory and reallocating
> > it to a device. But again, I thought the feature was about cache
> > coherence -- not TLB coherence.
>
> Yes, this is just invalidating or re-mapping into the kernel direct map,
> so we can rely on this feature for the use case here.
SGTM and that does make sense then. Thanks for confirming.