Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-133110-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <9b0f5285-bbce-41a1-9c74-74051ca3f9b1@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:06:33 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] KVM: x86/mmu: Rework marking folios
 dirty/accessed
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Stevens <stevensd@chromium.org>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
References: <ZgygGmaEuddZGKyX@google.com>
 <ca1f320b-dc06-48e0-b4f5-ce860a72f0e2@redhat.com>
 <Zg3V-M3iospVUEDU@google.com>
 <42dbf562-5eab-4f82-ad77-5ee5b8c79285@redhat.com>
 <Zg7j2D6WFqcPaXFB@google.com>
 <b3ea925f-bd47-4f54-bede-3f0d7471e3d7@redhat.com>
 <Zg8jip0QIBbOCgpz@google.com>
 <36e1592a-e590-48a0-9a79-eeac6b41314b@redhat.com>
 <CABgObfbykeRXv2r2tULe6_SwD7DkWPaMTdc6PkAUb3JmTodf4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a1c58d7-ddd9-40fc-a4ef-81c548de2b07@redhat.com>
 <ZhAD3hQwI0ltYnFp@google.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Autocrypt: addr=pbonzini@redhat.com; keydata=
 xsEhBFRCcBIBDqDGsz4K0zZun3jh+U6Z9wNGLKQ0kSFyjN38gMqU1SfP+TUNQepFHb/Gc0E2
 CxXPkIBTvYY+ZPkoTh5xF9oS1jqI8iRLzouzF8yXs3QjQIZ2SfuCxSVwlV65jotcjD2FTN04
 hVopm9llFijNZpVIOGUTqzM4U55sdsCcZUluWM6x4HSOdw5F5Utxfp1wOjD/v92Lrax0hjiX
 DResHSt48q+8FrZzY+AUbkUS+Jm34qjswdrgsC5uxeVcLkBgWLmov2kMaMROT0YmFY6A3m1S
 P/kXmHDXxhe23gKb3dgwxUTpENDBGcfEzrzilWueOeUWiOcWuFOed/C3SyijBx3Av/lbCsHU
 Vx6pMycNTdzU1BuAroB+Y3mNEuW56Yd44jlInzG2UOwt9XjjdKkJZ1g0P9dwptwLEgTEd3Fo
 UdhAQyRXGYO8oROiuh+RZ1lXp6AQ4ZjoyH8WLfTLf5g1EKCTc4C1sy1vQSdzIRu3rBIjAvnC
 tGZADei1IExLqB3uzXKzZ1BZ+Z8hnt2og9hb7H0y8diYfEk2w3R7wEr+Ehk5NQsT2MPI2QBd
 wEv1/Aj1DgUHZAHzG1QN9S8wNWQ6K9DqHZTBnI1hUlkp22zCSHK/6FwUCuYp1zcAEQEAAc0j
 UGFvbG8gQm9uemluaSA8cGJvbnppbmlAcmVkaGF0LmNvbT7CwU0EEwECACMFAlRCcBICGwMH
 CwkIBwMCAQYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRB+FRAMzTZpsbceDp9IIN6BIA0Ol7MoB15E
 11kRz/ewzryFY54tQlMnd4xxfH8MTQ/mm9I482YoSwPMdcWFAKnUX6Yo30tbLiNB8hzaHeRj
 jx12K+ptqYbg+cevgOtbLAlL9kNgLLcsGqC2829jBCUTVeMSZDrzS97ole/YEez2qFpPnTV0
 VrRWClWVfYh+JfzpXmgyhbkuwUxNFk421s4Ajp3d8nPPFUGgBG5HOxzkAm7xb1cjAuJ+oi/K
 CHfkuN+fLZl/u3E/fw7vvOESApLU5o0icVXeakfSz0LsygEnekDbxPnE5af/9FEkXJD5EoYG
 SEahaEtgNrR4qsyxyAGYgZlS70vkSSYJ+iT2rrwEiDlo31MzRo6Ba2FfHBSJ7lcYdPT7bbk9
 AO3hlNMhNdUhoQv7M5HsnqZ6unvSHOKmReNaS9egAGdRN0/GPDWr9wroyJ65ZNQsHl9nXBqE
 AukZNr5oJO5vxrYiAuuTSd6UI/xFkjtkzltG3mw5ao2bBpk/V/YuePrJsnPFHG7NhizrxttB
 nTuOSCMo45pfHQ+XYd5K1+Cv/NzZFNWscm5htJ0HznY+oOsZvHTyGz3v91pn51dkRYN0otqr
 bQ4tlFFuVjArBZcapSIe6NV8C4cEiSTOwE0EVEJx7gEIAMeHcVzuv2bp9HlWDp6+RkZe+vtl
 KwAHplb/WH59j2wyG8V6i33+6MlSSJMOFnYUCCL77bucx9uImI5nX24PIlqT+zasVEEVGSRF
 m8dgkcJDB7Tps0IkNrUi4yof3B3shR+vMY3i3Ip0e41zKx0CvlAhMOo6otaHmcxr35sWq1Jk
 tLkbn3wG+fPQCVudJJECvVQ//UAthSSEklA50QtD2sBkmQ14ZryEyTHQ+E42K3j2IUmOLriF
 dNr9NvE1QGmGyIcbw2NIVEBOK/GWxkS5+dmxM2iD4Jdaf2nSn3jlHjEXoPwpMs0KZsgdU0pP
 JQzMUMwmB1wM8JxovFlPYrhNT9MAEQEAAcLBMwQYAQIACQUCVEJx7gIbDAAKCRB+FRAMzTZp
 sadRDqCctLmYICZu4GSnie4lKXl+HqlLanpVMOoFNnWs9oRP47MbE2wv8OaYh5pNR9VVgyhD
 OG0AU7oidG36OeUlrFDTfnPYYSF/mPCxHttosyt8O5kabxnIPv2URuAxDByz+iVbL+RjKaGM
 GDph56ZTswlx75nZVtIukqzLAQ5fa8OALSGum0cFi4ptZUOhDNz1onz61klD6z3MODi0sBZN
 Aj6guB2L/+2ZwElZEeRBERRd/uommlYuToAXfNRdUwrwl9gRMiA0WSyTb190zneRRDfpSK5d
 usXnM/O+kr3Dm+Ui+UioPf6wgbn3T0o6I5BhVhs4h4hWmIW7iNhPjX1iybXfmb1gAFfjtHfL
 xRUr64svXpyfJMScIQtBAm0ihWPltXkyITA92ngCmPdHa6M1hMh4RDX+Jf1fiWubzp1voAg0
 JBrdmNZSQDz0iKmSrx8xkoXYfA3bgtFN8WJH2xgFL28XnqY4M6dLhJwV3z08tPSRqYFm4NMP
 dRsn0/7oymhneL8RthIvjDDQ5ktUjMe8LtHr70OZE/TT88qvEdhiIVUogHdo4qBrk41+gGQh
 b906Dudw5YhTJFU3nC6bbF2nrLlB4C/XSiH76ZvqzV0Z/cAMBo5NF/w=
In-Reply-To: <ZhAD3hQwI0ltYnFp@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 4/5/24 15:59, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Ya, from commit c13fda237f08 ("KVM: Assert that notifier count is elevated in
> .change_pte()"):
> 
>      x86 and MIPS are clearcut nops if the old SPTE is not-present, and that
>      is guaranteed due to the prior invalidation.  PPC simply unmaps the SPTE,
>      which again should be a nop due to the invalidation.  arm64 is a bit
>      murky, but it's also likely a nop because kvm_pgtable_stage2_map() is
>      called without a cache pointer, which means it will map an entry if and
>      only if an existing PTE was found.
> 
> I'm 100% in favor of removing .change_pte().  As I've said multiple times, the
> only reason I haven't sent a patch is because I didn't want it to prompt someone
> into resurrecting the original behavior. ????

Ah, this indeed reminded me of discussions we had in the past.  Patches 
sent now:

https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20240405115815.3226315-1-pbonzini@redhat.com/

and I don't think anyone would try to resurrect the original behavior. 
It made some sense when there was an .invalidate_page() callback as 
well, but the whole thing started to crumble when .invalidate_page() was 
made sleepable, plus as David noticed it's very poorly documented where 
to use set_pte_at_notify() vs. set_pte_at().

As I wrote in the cover letter above, the only reason why it has never 
caused a bug is because it was doing nothing...

Paolo