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:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 23:27:27 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, vkuznets@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] KVM: MMU: MMU role refactoring
Message-ID: <YgGq31edopd6RMts@google.com>
References: <20220204115718.14934-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
 <YgGmgMMR0dBmjW86@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YgGmgMMR0dBmjW86@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022, David Matlack wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 06:56:55AM -0500, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > The TDP MMU has a performance regression compared to the legacy
> > MMU when CR0 changes often.  This was reported for the grsecurity
> > kernel, which uses CR0.WP to implement kernel W^X.  In that case,
> > each change to CR0.WP unloads the MMU and causes a lot of unnecessary
> > work.  When running nested, this can even cause the L1 to hardly
> > make progress, as the L0 hypervisor it is overwhelmed by the amount
> > of MMU work that is needed.
> > 
> > The root cause of the issue is that the "MMU role" in KVM is a mess
> > that mixes the CPU setup (CR0/CR4/EFER, SMM, guest mode, etc.)
> > and the shadow page table format.  Whenever something is different
> > between the MMU and the CPU, it is stored as an extra field in struct
> > kvm_mmu---and for extra bonus complication, sometimes the same thing
> > is stored in both the role and an extra field.
> > 
> > So, this is the "no functional change intended" part of the changes
> > required to fix the performance regression.  It separates neatly
> > the shadow page table format ("MMU role") from the guest page table
> > format ("CPU role"), and removes the duplicate fields.
> 
> What do you think about calling this the guest_role instead of cpu_role?
> There is a bit of a precedent for using "guest" instead of "cpu" already
> for this type of concept (e.g. guest_walker), and I find it more
> intuitive.

Haven't looked at the series yet, but I'd prefer not to use guest_role, it's
too similar to is_guest_mode() and kvm_mmu_role.guest_mode.  E.g. we'd end up with

  static union kvm_mmu_role kvm_calc_guest_role(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
  					      const struct kvm_mmu_role_regs *regs)
  {
	union kvm_mmu_role role = {0};

	role.base.access = ACC_ALL;
	role.base.smm = is_smm(vcpu);
	role.base.guest_mode = is_guest_mode(vcpu);
	role.base.direct = !____is_cr0_pg(regs);

	...
  }

and possibly

	if (guest_role.guest_mode)
		...

which would be quite messy.  Maybe vcpu_role if cpu_role isn't intuitive?