Date:   Thu, 2 Dec 2021 02:03:37 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Hou Wenlong <houwenlong93@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] KVM: x86/mmu: Overhaul TDP MMU zapping and flushing
Message-ID: <YagpeekJ6I52f4U1@google.com>
References: <20211120045046.3940942-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <CALzav=cRRW2ZdotseqV+eKcu2oxehkkzKjYYDc3PA=Lw16JrGQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALzav=cRRW2ZdotseqV+eKcu2oxehkkzKjYYDc3PA=Lw16JrGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 01, 2021, David Matlack wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:51 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Overhaul TDP MMU's handling of zapping and TLB flushing to reduce the
> > number of TLB flushes, and to clean up the zapping code.  The final patch
> > realizes the biggest change, which is to use RCU to defer any TLB flush
> > due to zapping a SP to the caller.  The largest cleanup is to separate the
> > flows for zapping roots (zap _everything_), zapping leaf SPTEs (zap guest
> > mappings for whatever reason), and zapping a specific SP (NX recovery).
> > They're currently smushed into a single zap_gfn_range(), which was a good
> > idea at the time, but became a mess when trying to handle the different
> > rules, e.g. TLB flushes aren't needed when zapping a root because KVM can
> > safely zap a root if and only if it's unreachable.
> >
> > For booting an 8 vCPU, remote_tlb_flush (requests) goes from roughly
> > 180 (600) to 130 (215).
> >
> > Please don't apply patches 02 and 03, they've been posted elsehwere and by
> > other people.  I included them here because some of the patches have
> > pseudo-dependencies on their changes.  Patch 01 is also posted separately.
> > I had a brain fart and sent it out realizing that doing so would lead to
> > oddities.
> 
> What's the base commit for this series?

Pretty sure it's based on a stale kvm/queue, commit 81d7c6659da0 ("KVM: VMX: Remove
vCPU from PI wakeup list before updating PID.NV").  Time to add useAutoBase=true...