lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86/MMU: Do not check unsync status for root SP.
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 12:36:57PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/02/21 13:22, Yu Zhang wrote:
> > In shadow page table, only leaf SPs may be marked as unsync.
> > And for non-leaf SPs, we use unsync_children to keep the number
> > of the unsynced children. In kvm_mmu_sync_root(), sp->unsync
> > shall always be zero for the root SP, , hence no need to check
> > it. Instead, a warning inside mmu_sync_children() is added, in
> > case someone incorrectly used it.
> >
> > Also, clarify the mmu_need_write_protect(), by moving the warning
> > into kvm_unsync_page().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
>
> This should really be more of a Co-developed-by, and there are a couple
> adjustments that could be made in the commit message. I've queued the patch
> and I'll fix it up later.

Indeed. Thanks for the remind, and I'll pay attention in the future. :)

B.R.
Yu

>
> Paolo
>
> > ---
> > Changes in V2:
> > - warnings added based on Sean's suggestion.
> >
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 12 +++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > index 86af582..c4797a00cc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > @@ -1995,6 +1995,12 @@ static void mmu_sync_children(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > LIST_HEAD(invalid_list);
> > bool flush = false;
> > + /*
> > + * Only 4k SPTEs can directly be made unsync, the parent pages
> > + * should never be unsyc'd.
> > + */
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(sp->unsync);
> > +
> > while (mmu_unsync_walk(parent, &pages)) {
> > bool protected = false;
> > @@ -2502,6 +2508,8 @@ int kvm_mmu_unprotect_page(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn)
> > static void kvm_unsync_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
> > {
> > + WARN_ON(sp->role.level != PG_LEVEL_4K);
> > +
> > trace_kvm_mmu_unsync_page(sp);
> > ++vcpu->kvm->stat.mmu_unsync;
> > sp->unsync = 1;
> > @@ -2524,7 +2532,6 @@ bool mmu_need_write_protect(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
> > if (sp->unsync)
> > continue;
> > - WARN_ON(sp->role.level != PG_LEVEL_4K);
> > kvm_unsync_page(vcpu, sp);
> > }
> > @@ -3406,8 +3413,7 @@ void kvm_mmu_sync_roots(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > * mmu_need_write_protect() describe what could go wrong if this
> > * requirement isn't satisfied.
> > */
> > - if (!smp_load_acquire(&sp->unsync) &&
> > - !smp_load_acquire(&sp->unsync_children))
> > + if (!smp_load_acquire(&sp->unsync_children))
> > return;
> > write_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> >
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-08 14:53    [W:0.068 / U:1.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site