lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] KVM: X86: fix tlb_flush_guest()
On Fri, May 28, 2021, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/5/28 03:28, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > KVM_REQ_MMU_RELOAD is overkill, nuking the shadow page tables will completely
> > > > offset the performance gains of the paravirtualized flush.
> >
> > Argh, I take that back. The PV KVM_VCPU_FLUSH_TLB flag doesn't distinguish
> > between flushing a specific mm and flushing the entire TLB. The HyperV usage
> > (via KVM_REQ) also throws everything into a single bucket. A full RELOAD still
> > isn't necessary as KVM just needs to sync all roots, not blast them away. For
> > previous roots, KVM doesn't have a mechanism to defer the sync, so the immediate
> > fix will need to unload those roots.
> >
> > And looking at KVM's other flows, __kvm_mmu_new_pgd() and kvm_set_cr3() are also
> > broken with respect to previous roots. E.g. if the guest does a MOV CR3 that
> > flushes the entire TLB, followed by a MOV CR3 with PCID_NOFLUSH=1, KVM will fail
> > to sync the MMU on the second flush even though the guest can technically rely
> > on the first MOV CR3 to have synchronized any previous changes relative to the
> > fisrt MOV CR3.
>
> Could you elaborate the problem please?
> When can a MOV CR3 that needs to flush the entire TLB if PCID is enabled?

Scratch that, I was wrong. The SDM explicitly states that other PCIDs don't
need to be flushed if CR4.PCIDE=1.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-02 17:12    [W:0.082 / U:0.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site