Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: x86/MMU: Do not check unsync status for root SP.
To:     Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>, seanjc@google.com
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org
References: <20210209170111.4770-1-yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <aa265bd9-851e-1823-8807-df50cd9820ab@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 18:14:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210209170111.4770-1-yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 09/02/21 18:01, Yu Zhang wrote:
> In shadow page table, only leaf SPs may be marked as unsync;
> instead, for non-leaf SPs, we store the number of unsynced
> children in unsync_children. Therefore, in kvm_mmu_sync_root(),
> sp->unsync shall always be zero for the root SP and there is
> no need to check it. Remove the check, and add a warning
> inside mmu_sync_children() to assert that the flags are used
> properly.
> 
> While at it, move the warning from mmu_need_write_protect()
> to kvm_unsync_page().
> 
> Co-developed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>   arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 12 +++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index 86af58294272..5f482af125b4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -1995,6 +1995,12 @@ static void mmu_sync_children(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>   	LIST_HEAD(invalid_list);
>   	bool flush = false;
>   
> +	/*
> +	 * Only 4k SPTEs can directly be made unsync, the parent pages
> +	 * should never be unsyc'd.
> +	 */
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(parent->unsync);
> +
>   	while (mmu_unsync_walk(parent, &pages)) {
>   		bool protected = false;
>   
> @@ -2502,6 +2508,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_mmu_unprotect_page);
>   
>   static void kvm_unsync_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>   {
> +	WARN_ON(sp->role.level != PG_LEVEL_4K);
> +
>   	trace_kvm_mmu_unsync_page(sp);
>   	++vcpu->kvm->stat.mmu_unsync;
>   	sp->unsync = 1;
> @@ -2524,7 +2532,6 @@ bool mmu_need_write_protect(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
>   		if (sp->unsync)
>   			continue;
>   
> -		WARN_ON(sp->role.level != PG_LEVEL_4K);
>   		kvm_unsync_page(vcpu, sp);
>   	}
>   
> @@ -3406,8 +3413,7 @@ void kvm_mmu_sync_roots(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   		 * mmu_need_write_protect() describe what could go wrong if this
>   		 * requirement isn't satisfied.
>   		 */
> -		if (!smp_load_acquire(&sp->unsync) &&
> -		    !smp_load_acquire(&sp->unsync_children))
> +		if (!smp_load_acquire(&sp->unsync_children))
>   			return;
>   
>   		write_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> 

Queued, thanks.

Paolo