Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230605004334.1930091-1-mizhang@google.com> <CALMp9eSQgcKd=SN4q2QRYbveKoayKzuYEQPM0Xu+FgQ_Mja8-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL715WJowYL=W40SWmtPoz1F9WVBFDG7TQwbsV2Bwf9-cS77=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALMp9eRRzQKoFVHvgY8VfpS-8=RY6HYOanBuGYLRbRQ+9V8zng@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eRRzQKoFVHvgY8VfpS-8=RY6HYOanBuGYLRbRQ+9V8zng@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Jun 2023 11:23:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL715WKVZKESoSyG-uv1v1+K1vgy=wEwCVdOVsT-JzA2zhWigA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Remove KVM MMU write lock when accessing indirect_shadow_pages
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 11:12=E2=80=AFAM Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com> w=
rote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 10:42=E2=80=AFAM Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com=
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 9:55=E2=80=AFAM Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com=
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 5:43=E2=80=AFPM Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.=
com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Remove KVM MMU write lock when accessing indirect_shadow_pages coun=
ter when
> > > > page role is direct because this counter value is used as a coarse-=
grained
> > > > heuristics to check if there is nested guest active. Racing with th=
is
> > > > heuristics without mmu lock will be harmless because the correspond=
ing
> > > > indirect shadow sptes for the GPA will either be zapped by this thr=
ead or
> > > > some other thread who has previously zapped all indirect shadow pag=
es and
> > > > makes the value to 0.
> > > >
> > > > Because of that, remove the KVM MMU write lock pair to potentially =
reduce
> > > > the lock contension and improve the performance of nested VM. In ad=
dition
> > > > opportunistically change the comment of 'direct mmu' to make the
> > > > description consistent with other places.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 10 ++--------
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > index 5ad55ef71433..97cfa5a00ff2 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > > @@ -8585,15 +8585,9 @@ static bool reexecute_instruction(struct kvm=
_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t cr2_or_gpa,
> > > >
> > > >         kvm_release_pfn_clean(pfn);
> > > >
> > > > -       /* The instructions are well-emulated on direct mmu. */
> > > > +       /* The instructions are well-emulated on Direct MMUs. */
> > > >         if (vcpu->arch.mmu->root_role.direct) {
> > > > -               unsigned int indirect_shadow_pages;
> > > > -
> > > > -               write_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> > > > -               indirect_shadow_pages =3D vcpu->kvm->arch.indirect_=
shadow_pages;
> > > > -               write_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> > > > -
> > > > -               if (indirect_shadow_pages)
> > > > +               if (READ_ONCE(vcpu->kvm->arch.indirect_shadow_pages=
))
> > >
> > > I don't understand the need for READ_ONCE() here. That implies that
> > > there is something tricky going on, and I don't think that's the case=
.
> >
> > READ_ONCE() is just telling the compiler not to remove the read. Since
> > this is reading a global variable,  the compiler might just read a
> > previous copy if the value has already been read into a local
> > variable. But that is not the case here...
>
> Not a global variable, actually, but that's not relevant. What would
> be wrong with using a previously read copy?

Nothing will be wrong I think since this is already just a heuristic.

>
> We don't always wrap reads in READ_ONCE(). It's actually pretty rare.
> So, there should be an explicit and meaningful reason.
>
> > Note I see there is another READ_ONCE for
> > kvm->arch.indirect_shadow_pages, so I am reusing the same thing.
>
> That's not a good reason. "If all of your friends jumped off a cliff,
> would you?"

:)

>
> > I did check the reordering issue but it should be fine because when
> > 'we' see indirect_shadow_pages as 0, the shadow pages must have
> > already been zapped. Not only because of the locking, but also the
> > program order in __kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page() shows that it will zap
> > shadow pages first before updating the stats.

yeah, I forgot to mention that removing READ_ONCE() is ok for me.