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:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:07:53 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     Yanan Wang <wangyanan55@huawei.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com,
        zhukeqian1@huawei.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/6] KVM: arm64: Distinguish cases of memcache
 allocations completely
Message-ID: <YLdmiTfgz1EqBsJd@google.com>
References: <20210415115032.35760-1-wangyanan55@huawei.com>
 <20210415115032.35760-7-wangyanan55@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210415115032.35760-7-wangyanan55@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 19:50:32 (+0800), Yanan Wang wrote:
> With a guest translation fault, the memcache pages are not needed if KVM
> is only about to install a new leaf entry into the existing page table.
> And with a guest permission fault, the memcache pages are also not needed
> for a write_fault in dirty-logging time if KVM is only about to update
> the existing leaf entry instead of collapsing a block entry into a table.
> 
> By comparing fault_granule and vma_pagesize, cases that require allocations
> from memcache and cases that don't can be distinguished completely.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yanan Wang <wangyanan55@huawei.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 25 ++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> index aa536392b308..9e35aa5d29f2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -895,19 +895,6 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>  	gfn = fault_ipa >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>  	mmap_read_unlock(current->mm);
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Permission faults just need to update the existing leaf entry,
> -	 * and so normally don't require allocations from the memcache. The
> -	 * only exception to this is when dirty logging is enabled at runtime
> -	 * and a write fault needs to collapse a block entry into a table.
> -	 */
> -	if (fault_status != FSC_PERM || (logging_active && write_fault)) {
> -		ret = kvm_mmu_topup_memory_cache(memcache,
> -						 kvm_mmu_cache_min_pages(kvm));
> -		if (ret)
> -			return ret;
> -	}
> -
>  	mmu_seq = vcpu->kvm->mmu_notifier_seq;
>  	/*
>  	 * Ensure the read of mmu_notifier_seq happens before we call
> @@ -970,6 +957,18 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>  	else if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC))
>  		prot |= KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_X;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Allocations from the memcache are required only when granule of the
> +	 * lookup level where the guest fault happened exceeds vma_pagesize,
> +	 * which means new page tables will be created in the fault handlers.
> +	 */
> +	if (fault_granule > vma_pagesize) {
> +		ret = kvm_mmu_topup_memory_cache(memcache,
> +						 kvm_mmu_cache_min_pages(kvm));
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +	}

You're now doing the top-up in the kvm->mmu_lock critical section. Isn't
this more or less what we try to avoid by using a memory cache?

Thanks,
Quentin