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>
In-Reply-To: <CAL715WJowYL=W40SWmtPoz1F9WVBFDG7TQwbsV2Bwf9-cS77=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Jun 2023 11:11:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CALMp9eRRzQKoFVHvgY8VfpS-8=RY6HYOanBuGYLRbRQ+9V8zng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Remove KVM MMU write lock when accessing indirect_shadow_pages
To:     Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@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 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.co=
m> wrote:
> > >
> > > Remove KVM MMU write lock when accessing indirect_shadow_pages counte=
r when
> > > page role is direct because this counter value is used as a coarse-gr=
ained
> > > heuristics to check if there is nested guest active. Racing with this
> > > heuristics without mmu lock will be harmless because the correspondin=
g
> > > indirect shadow sptes for the GPA will either be zapped by this threa=
d or
> > > some other thread who has previously zapped all indirect shadow pages=
 and
> > > makes the value to 0.
> > >
> > > Because of that, remove the KVM MMU write lock pair to potentially re=
duce
> > > the lock contension and improve the performance of nested VM. In addi=
tion
> > > 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_v=
cpu *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_sh=
adow_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?

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.