DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 098577F3E0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] kvm: svm: Add support for additional SVM NPF error
 codes
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, thomas lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        rkrcmar@redhat.com, joro@8bytes.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, bp@suse.de
References: <147992048887.27638.17559991037474542240.stgit@brijesh-build-machine>
 <147992049856.27638.17076562184960611399.stgit@brijesh-build-machine>
 <da3f8d2d-04c2-d2f8-0752-7d484c9bc25b@redhat.com>
 <e8911a18-ce93-ca01-2876-3f7e90091f92@amd.com>
 <21b9f4db-f929-80f6-6ad2-6fa3b77f82c0@redhat.com>
 <d7266e60-3bcc-946d-4325-dfd1126c9fc4@amd.com>
 <98086274.371452.1501531542630.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
 <661faa8a-87af-743f-d3ea-b95ada0d7677@amd.com>
 <6afdcd42-7abe-c814-1f67-407ff91a75d2@redhat.com>
 <f8a2c258-0b53-b33c-1dae-a6f6e0e68239@amd.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <85670631-0e42-7fd3-6d2c-29be2f91b38a@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:05:45 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f8a2c258-0b53-b33c-1dae-a6f6e0e68239@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3050
Lines: 77

On 04/08/2017 02:30, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/2/17 5:42 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 01/08/2017 15:36, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>>>> The flow is:
>>>>
>>>>    hardware walks page table; L2 page table points to read only memory
>>>>    -> pf_interception (code =
>>>>    -> kvm_handle_page_fault (need_unprotect = false)
>>>>    -> kvm_mmu_page_fault
>>>>    -> paging64_page_fault (for example)
>>>>       -> try_async_pf
>>>>          map_writable set to false
>>>>       -> paging64_fetch(write_fault = true, map_writable = false,
>>>> prefault = false)
>>>>          -> mmu_set_spte(speculative = false, host_writable = false,
>>>> write_fault = true)
>>>>             -> set_spte
>>>>                mmu_need_write_protect returns true
>>>>                return true
>>>>             write_fault == true -> set emulate = true
>>>>             return true
>>>>          return true
>>>>       return true
>>>>    emulate
>>>>
>>>> Without this patch, emulation would have called
>>>>
>>>>    ..._gva_to_gpa_nested
>>>>    -> translate_nested_gpa
>>>>    -> paging64_gva_to_gpa
>>>>    -> paging64_walk_addr
>>>>    -> paging64_walk_addr_generic
>>>>       set fault (nested_page_fault=true)
>>>>
>>>> and then:
>>>>
>>>>     kvm_propagate_fault
>>>>     -> nested_svm_inject_npf_exit
>>>>
>>> maybe then safer thing would be to qualify the new error_code check with
>>> !mmu_is_nested(vcpu) or something like that. So that way it would run on
>>> L1 guest, and not the L2 guest. I believe that would restrict it avoid
>>> hitting this case. Are you okay with this change ?
>> Or check "vcpu->arch.mmu.direct_map"?  That would be true when not using
>> shadow pages.
> 
> Yes that can be used.

Are you going to send a patch for this?

Paolo

>>> IIRC, the main place where this check was valuable was when L1 guest had
>>> a fault (when coming out of the L2 guest) and emulation was not needed.
>> How do I measure the effect?  I tried counting the number of emulations,
>> and any difference from the patch was lost in noise.
> 
> I think this patch is necessary for functional reasons (not just
> perf), because we added the other patch to look at the GPA and stop
> walking the guest page tables on a NPF.
> 
> The issue I think was that hardware has taken an NPF because the page
> table is marked RO, and it saves the GPA in the VMCB. KVM was then going
> and emulating the instruction and it saw that a GPA was available. But
> that GPA was not the GPA of the instruction it is emulating, since it
> was the GPA of the tablewalk page that had the fault. It was debugged
> that at the time and realized that emulating the instruction was
> unnecessary so we added this new code in there which fixed the
> functional issue and helps perf.
> 
> I don't have any data on how much perf, as I recall it was most
> effective when the L1 guest page tables and L2 nested page tables were
> exactly the same. In that case, it avoided emulations for code that L1
> executes which I think could be as much as one emulation per 4kb code page.
>