Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f4189f26-eff9-9fd0-40a1-69ac7759dedf@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:20:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 22/28] KVM: x86/mmu: Zap defunct roots via asynchronous
 worker
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
References: <20220226001546.360188-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20220226001546.360188-23-seanjc@google.com>
 <b9270432-4ee8-be8e-8aa1-4b09992f82b8@redhat.com>
 <Yh+xA31FrfGoxXLB@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <Yh+xA31FrfGoxXLB@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/2/22 19:01, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!refcount_read(&kvm->users_count)) {
>> +		kvm_mmu_zap_all(kvm);
>> +		return;
>> +	}
> 
> I'd prefer we make this an assertion and shove this logic to set_nx_huge_pages(),
> because in that case there's no need to zap anything, the guest can never run
> again.  E.g. (I'm trying to remember why I didn't do this before...)

I did it this way because it seemed like a reasonable fallback for any 
present or future caller.

> One thing that keeps tripping me up is the "readers" verbiage.  I get confused
> because taking mmu_lock for read vs. write doesn't really have anything to do with
> reading or writing state, e.g. "readers" still write SPTEs, and so I keep thinking
> "readers" means anything iterating over the set of roots.  Not sure if there's a
> shorthand that won't be confusing.

Not that I know of.  You really need to know that the rwlock is been 
used for its shared/exclusive locking behavior.  But even on ther OSes 
use shared/exclusive instead of read/write, there are no analogous nouns 
and people end up using readers/writers anyway.

>> It passes a smoke test, and also resolves the debate on the fate of patch 1.
> +1000, I love this approach.  Do you want me to work on a v3, or shall I let you
> have the honors?

I'm already running the usual battery of tests, so I should be able to 
post it either tomorrow (early in my evening) or Friday morning.

Paolo