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;
Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:23:44 +0100
Message-ID: <87im4nn8wf.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
Cc:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>, <wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com>,
        Santosh Shukla <sashukla@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] kvm/arm64: Try stage2 block mapping for host device MMIO
In-Reply-To: <b434317f-ef6d-1d91-0189-8343c404c88c@huawei.com>
References: <20210414065109.8616-1-zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
        <20210414065109.8616-3-zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
        <87pmyxme2m.wl-maz@kernel.org>
        <b434317f-ef6d-1d91-0189-8343c404c88c@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/27.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 03:20:52 +0100,
Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On 2021/4/14 17:05, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > + Santosh, who found some interesting bugs in that area before.
> > 
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:51:09 +0100,
> > Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The MMIO region of a device maybe huge (GB level), try to use
> >> block mapping in stage2 to speedup both map and unmap.
> >>
> >> Compared to normal memory mapping, we should consider two more
> >> points when try block mapping for MMIO region:
> >>
> >> 1. For normal memory mapping, the PA(host physical address) and
> >> HVA have same alignment within PUD_SIZE or PMD_SIZE when we use
> >> the HVA to request hugepage, so we don't need to consider PA
> >> alignment when verifing block mapping. But for device memory
> >> mapping, the PA and HVA may have different alignment.
> >>
> >> 2. For normal memory mapping, we are sure hugepage size properly
> >> fit into vma, so we don't check whether the mapping size exceeds
> >> the boundary of vma. But for device memory mapping, we should pay
> >> attention to this.
> >>
> >> This adds device_rough_page_shift() to check these two points when
> >> selecting block mapping size.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> >> index c59af5ca01b0..1a6d96169d60 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> >> @@ -624,6 +624,31 @@ static void kvm_send_hwpoison_signal(unsigned long address, short lsb)
> >>  	send_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, (void __user *)address, lsb, current);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +/*
> >> + * Find a max mapping size that properly insides the vma. And hva and pa must
> >> + * have the same alignment to this mapping size. It's rough as there are still
> >> + * other restrictions, will be checked by fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping().
> >> + */
> >> +static short device_rough_page_shift(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> +				     unsigned long hva)
> > 
> > My earlier question still stands. Under which circumstances would this
> > function return something that is *not* the final mapping size? I
> > really don't see a reason why this would not return the final mapping
> > size.
> 
> IIUC, all the restrictions are about alignment and area boundary.
> 
> That's to say, HVA, IPA and PA must have same alignment within the
> mapping size.  And the areas are memslot and vma, which means the
> mapping size must properly fit into the memslot and vma.
> 
> In this function, we just checked the alignment of HVA and PA, and
> the boundary of vma.  So we still need to check the alignment of HVA
> and IPA, and the boundary of memslot.  These will be checked by
> fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping().

But that's no different from what we do with normal memory, is it? So
it really feels like we should have *one* function that deals with
establishing the basic mapping size from the VMA (see below for what I
have in mind).

> 
> > 
> >> +{
> >> +	phys_addr_t pa = (vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT) + (hva - vma->vm_start);
> >> +
> >> +#ifndef __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED
> >> +	if ((hva & (PUD_SIZE - 1)) == (pa & (PUD_SIZE - 1)) &&
> >> +	    ALIGN_DOWN(hva, PUD_SIZE) >= vma->vm_start &&
> >> +	    ALIGN(hva, PUD_SIZE) <= vma->vm_end)
> >> +		return PUD_SHIFT;
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >> +	if ((hva & (PMD_SIZE - 1)) == (pa & (PMD_SIZE - 1)) &&
> >> +	    ALIGN_DOWN(hva, PMD_SIZE) >= vma->vm_start &&
> >> +	    ALIGN(hva, PMD_SIZE) <= vma->vm_end)
> >> +		return PMD_SHIFT;
> >> +
> >> +	return PAGE_SHIFT;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  static bool fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
> >>  					       unsigned long hva,
> >>  					       unsigned long map_size)
> >> @@ -769,7 +794,10 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> >>  		return -EFAULT;
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> -	/* Let's check if we will get back a huge page backed by hugetlbfs */
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * Let's check if we will get back a huge page backed by hugetlbfs, or
> >> +	 * get block mapping for device MMIO region.
> >> +	 */
> >>  	mmap_read_lock(current->mm);
> >>  	vma = find_vma_intersection(current->mm, hva, hva + 1);
> >>  	if (unlikely(!vma)) {
> >> @@ -780,11 +808,12 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> >>  
> >>  	if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
> >>  		vma_shift = huge_page_shift(hstate_vma(vma));
> >> +	else if (vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP)
> >> +		vma_shift = device_rough_page_shift(vma, hva);
> > 
> > What prevents a VMA from having both VM_HUGETLB and VM_PFNMAP? This is
> > pretty unlikely, but I'd like to see this case catered for.
> > 
> I'm not sure whether VM_HUGETLB and VM_PFNMAP are compatible, and I
> failed to find a case.
> 
> VM_PFNMAP is used for page-ranges managed without "struct page",
> just pure PFN.  IIUC, VM_HUGETLB is used for hugetlbfs, which always
> has "struct page".  So I think they should not be compatible,
> otherwise it's a bug of driver.

For now, maybe. But huge mappings of PFN could land at some point, and
it'd be hard to catch. I think this case deserves a VM_BUG_ON().

> 
> >>  	else
> >>  		vma_shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
> >>  
> >> -	if (logging_active ||
> >> -	    (vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP)) {
> >> +	if (logging_active) {

BTW, don't you introduce a bug here? Logging shouldn't affect device
mappings.


> >>  		force_pte = true;
> >>  		vma_shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
> >>  	}
> >> @@ -855,7 +884,7 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> >>  
> >>  	if (kvm_is_device_pfn(pfn)) {
> >>  		device = true;
> >> -		force_pte = true;
> >> +		force_pte = (vma_pagesize == PAGE_SIZE);
> > 
> > Why do we need to set force_pte if we are already dealing with
> > PAGE_SIZE? I guess you are doing this for the sake of avoiding the
> > call to transparent_hugepage_adjust(), right?
> Yes.
> 
> > 
> > I'd rather you simply don't try to upgrade a device mapping by
> > explicitly checking for this and keep force_pte for *memory*
> > exclusively.
> Agree, that's better.
> 
> > 
> > Santosh, can you please take a look at this series and try to see if
> > the problem you fixed in [1] (which ended up as commit 91a2c34b7d6f)
> > is still OK with this series?
> I searched the initial version[*], VM_PFNMAP is set when we call
> gfn_to_pfn_prot()->vma_mmio_fault()->remap_pfn_range().  Then the
> check of VM_PFNMAP in user_mem_abort() failed, so we will try to
> call transparent_hugepage_adjust() for device pfn.
> 
> In that case, our logic of trying block mapping for MMIO is not
> used. And we still set force_pte for device pfn, so this bugfix is
> not affected. Santosh, do you agree that?

But isn't what we just agreed to get rid of just above?

> 
> I still found that the reason vfio_pci does not have this
> bug. vfio_pci set VM_PFNMAP for vma when userspace calls mmap().  I
> will apply this logic for vfio_mdev too, let's see what vfio
> maintainer think about it.

I think that'd be good to see what Alex thinks about it...

Here's the changes I propose. It is completely untested, of course.

Thanks,

	M.

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
index 8711894db8c2..f32d956cc199 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -738,6 +738,35 @@ transparent_hugepage_adjust(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
 	return PAGE_SIZE;
 }
 
+static int get_vma_page_shift(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long hva)
+{
+	unsigned long pa;
+
+	if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma) && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP))
+		return huge_page_shift(hstate_vma(vma));
+
+	if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP))
+		return PAGE_SHIFT;
+
+	VM_BUG_ON(is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma));
+
+	pa = (vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT) + (hva - vma->vm_start);
+
+#ifndef __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED
+	if ((hva & (PUD_SIZE - 1)) == (pa & (PUD_SIZE - 1)) &&
+	    ALIGN_DOWN(hva, PUD_SIZE) >= vma->vm_start &&
+	    ALIGN(hva, PUD_SIZE) <= vma->vm_end)
+		return PUD_SHIFT;
+#endif
+
+	if ((hva & (PMD_SIZE - 1)) == (pa & (PMD_SIZE - 1)) &&
+	    ALIGN_DOWN(hva, PMD_SIZE) >= vma->vm_start &&
+	    ALIGN(hva, PMD_SIZE) <= vma->vm_end)
+		return PMD_SHIFT;
+
+	return PAGE_SHIFT;
+}
+
 static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
 			  struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot, unsigned long hva,
 			  unsigned long fault_status)
@@ -778,13 +807,9 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
 		return -EFAULT;
 	}
 
-	if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
-		vma_shift = huge_page_shift(hstate_vma(vma));
-	else
-		vma_shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
+	vma_shift = get_vma_page_shift(vma, hva);
 
-	if (logging_active ||
-	    (vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP)) {
+	if (logging_active && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP)) {
 		force_pte = true;
 		vma_shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
 	}
@@ -854,8 +879,17 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
 		return -EFAULT;
 
 	if (kvm_is_device_pfn(pfn)) {
+		/*
+		 * If the page was identified as device early by looking at
+		 * the VMA flags, vma_pagesize is already representing the
+		 * largest quantity we can map.  If instead it was mapped
+		 * via gfn_to_pfn_prot(), vma_pagesize is set to PAGE_SIZE
+		 * and must not be upgraded.
+		 *
+		 * In both cases, we don't let transparent_hugepage_adjust()
+		 * change things at the last minute.
+		 */
 		device = true;
-		force_pte = true;
 	} else if (logging_active && !write_fault) {
 		/*
 		 * Only actually map the page as writable if this was a write
@@ -876,7 +910,7 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
 	 * If we are not forced to use page mapping, check if we are
 	 * backed by a THP and thus use block mapping if possible.
 	 */
-	if (vma_pagesize == PAGE_SIZE && !force_pte)
+	if (vma_pagesize == PAGE_SIZE && !(force_pte || device))
 		vma_pagesize = transparent_hugepage_adjust(memslot, hva,
 							   &pfn, &fault_ipa);
 	if (writable)

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.