Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-131888-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 10:31:04 -0700
In-Reply-To: <42dbf562-5eab-4f82-ad77-5ee5b8c79285@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240320005024.3216282-1-seanjc@google.com> <4d04b010-98f3-4eae-b320-a7dd6104b0bf@redhat.com>
 <CALzav=eLH+V_5Y6ZWsRkmnbEb6fxPa55B7xyWxP3o6qsrs_nHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <a2fff462-dfe6-4979-a7b2-131c6e0b5017@redhat.com> <ZgygGmaEuddZGKyX@google.com>
 <ca1f320b-dc06-48e0-b4f5-ce860a72f0e2@redhat.com> <Zg3V-M3iospVUEDU@google.com>
 <42dbf562-5eab-4f82-ad77-5ee5b8c79285@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Zg7j2D6WFqcPaXFB@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM: x86/mmu: Rework marking folios dirty/accessed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Stevens <stevensd@chromium.org>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.04.24 00:19, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Hmm, we essentially already have an mmu_notifier today, since secondary MMUs need
> > to be invalidated before consuming dirty status.  Isn't the end result essentially
> > a sane FOLL_TOUCH?
> 
> Likely. As stated in my first mail, FOLL_TOUCH is a bit of a mess right now.
> 
> Having something that makes sure the writable PTE/PMD is dirty (or
> alternatively sets it dirty), paired with MMU notifiers notifying on any
> mkclean would be one option that would leave handling how to handle dirtying
> of folios completely to the core. It would behave just like a CPU writing to
> the page table, which would set the pte dirty.
> 
> Of course, if frequent clearing of the dirty PTE/PMD bit would be a problem
> (like we discussed for the accessed bit), that would not be an option. But
> from what I recall, only clearing the PTE/PMD dirty bit is rather rare.

And AFAICT, all cases already invalidate secondary MMUs anyways, so if anything
it would probably be a net positive, e.g. the notification could more precisely
say that SPTEs need to be read-only, not blasted away completely.