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;
To:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>
References: <20210427223635.2711774-1-bgardon@google.com>
 <20210427223635.2711774-6-bgardon@google.com>
 <997f9fe3-847b-8216-c629-1ad5fdd2ffae@redhat.com>
 <CANgfPd8RZXQ-BamwQPS66Q5hLRZaDFhi0WaA=ZvCP4BbofiUhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d936b13b-bb00-fc93-de3b-adc59fa32a7b@redhat.com>
 <CANgfPd9kVJOAR_uq+oh9kE2gr00EUAGSPiJ9jMR9BdG2CAC+BA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Protect kvm->memslots with a mutex
Message-ID: <5b4a0c30-118c-da1f-281c-130438a1c833@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 23:41:47 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANgfPd9kVJOAR_uq+oh9kE2gr00EUAGSPiJ9jMR9BdG2CAC+BA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 28/04/21 22:40, Ben Gardon wrote:
> ... However with the locking you propose below, we might still run
> into issues on a move or delete, which would mean we'd still need the
> separate memory allocation for the rmaps array. Or we do some
> shenanigans where we try to copy the rmap pointers from the other set
> of memslots.

If that's (almost) as easy as passing old to 
kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region, that would be totally okay.

> My only worry is the latency this could add to a nested VM launch, but
> it seems pretty unlikely that that would be frequently coinciding with
> a memslot change in practice.

Right, memslot changes in practice occur only at boot and on hotplug. 
If that was a problem we could always make the allocation state 
off/in-progress/on, allowing to check the allocation state out of the 
lock.  This would only potentially slow down the first nested VM launch.

Paolo