Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-145978-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:48:28 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
	Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@gmail.com,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, erdemaktas@google.com,
	Sagi Shahar <sagis@google.com>, Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	chen.bo@intel.com, hang.yuan@intel.com, tina.zhang@intel.com,
	isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 087/130] KVM: TDX: handle vcpu migration over logical
 processor
Message-ID: <20240415224828.GS3039520@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <cover.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <b9fe57ceeaabe650f0aecb21db56ef2b1456dcfe.1708933498.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <0c3efffa-8dd5-4231-8e90-e0241f058a20@intel.com>
 <20240412214201.GO3039520@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <Zhm5rYA8eSWIUi36@google.com>
 <20240413004031.GQ3039520@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <Zh0wGQ_FfPRENgb0@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zh0wGQ_FfPRENgb0@google.com>

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 06:49:35AM -0700,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 03:46:05PM -0700,
> > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:15:29AM -0700, Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > +void tdx_mmu_release_hkid(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	while (__tdx_mmu_release_hkid(kvm) == -EBUSY)
> > > > > > +		;
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > 
> > > > > As I understand, __tdx_mmu_release_hkid() returns -EBUSY
> > > > > after TDH.VP.FLUSH has been sent for every vCPU followed by
> > > > > TDH.MNG.VPFLUSHDONE, which returns TDX_FLUSHVP_NOT_DONE.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Considering earlier comment that a retry of TDH.VP.FLUSH is not
> > > > > needed, why is this while() loop here that sends the
> > > > > TDH.VP.FLUSH again to all vCPUs instead of just a loop within
> > > > > __tdx_mmu_release_hkid() to _just_ resend TDH.MNG.VPFLUSHDONE?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Could it be possible for a vCPU to appear during this time, thus
> > > > > be missed in one TDH.VP.FLUSH cycle, to require a new cycle of
> > > > > TDH.VP.FLUSH?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes. There is a race between closing KVM vCPU fd and MMU notifier release hook.
> > > > When KVM vCPU fd is closed, vCPU context can be loaded again.
> > > 
> > > But why is _loading_ a vCPU context problematic?
> > 
> > It's nothing problematic.  It becomes a bit harder to understand why
> > tdx_mmu_release_hkid() issues IPI on each loop.  I think it's reasonable
> > to make the normal path easy and to complicate/penalize the destruction path.
> > Probably I should've added comment on the function.
> 
> By "problematic", I meant, why can that result in a "missed in one TDH.VP.FLUSH
> cycle"?  AFAICT, loading a vCPU shouldn't cause that vCPU to be associated from
> the TDX module's perspective, and thus shouldn't trigger TDX_FLUSHVP_NOT_DONE.
> 
> I.e. looping should be unnecessary, no?

The loop is unnecessary with the current code.

The possible future optimization is to reduce destruction time of Secure-EPT
somehow.  One possible option is to release HKID while vCPUs are still alive and
destruct Secure-EPT with multiple vCPU context.  Because that's future
optimization, we can ignore it at this phase.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>