Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2023 05:18:11 +0000
From:   Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
To:     Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
Cc:     Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com>, seanjc@google.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, bgardon@google.com, dmatlack@google.com,
        jmattson@google.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 03/18] KVM: x86/mmu: Track count of pages in KVM MMU
 page caches globally
Message-ID: <ZAlsE0dei9I1MfpW@google.com>
References: <20230306224127.1689967-1-vipinsh@google.com>
 <20230306224127.1689967-4-vipinsh@google.com>
 <20230308223331.00000234@gmail.com>
 <CAHVum0cMAwyQamr5yxCB56DSy7QHuCvTG06qRrJCGiZWQV+ZTw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHVum0cMAwyQamr5yxCB56DSy7QHuCvTG06qRrJCGiZWQV+ZTw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> >
> > 1) Previously mmu_topup_memory_caches() works fine without a lock.
> > 2) IMHO I was suspecting if this lock seems affects the parallelization
> > of the TDP MMU fault handling.
> >
> > TDP MMU fault handling is intend to be optimized for parallelization fault
> > handling by taking a read lock and operating the page table via atomic
> > operations. Multiple fault handling can enter the TDP MMU fault path
> > because of read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock) below.
> >
> > W/ this lock, it seems the part of benefit of parallelization is gone
> > because the lock can contend earlier above. Will this cause performance
> > regression?
> 
> This is a per vCPU lock, with this lock each vCPU will still be able
> to perform parallel fault handling without contending for lock.
> 

I am curious how effective it is by trying to accquiring this per vCPU
lock? If a vcpu thread should stay within the (host) kernel (vmx
root/non-root) for the vast majority of the time, isn't the shrinker
always fail to make any progress?