lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 5/7] KVM: x86: Participate in bitmap-based PTE aging
On 2024-04-19 01:47 PM, James Houghton wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:28 AM David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com> wrote:
> > On 2024-04-11 10:08 AM, David Matlack wrote:
> > bool kvm_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > {
> > bool young = false;
> >
> > if (!range->arg.metadata->bitmap && kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm))
> > young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_age_rmap);
> >
> > if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
> > young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(kvm, range);
> >
> > return young;
> > }
> >
> > bool kvm_test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > {
> > bool young = false;
> >
> > if (!range->arg.metadata->bitmap && kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm))
> > young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_test_age_rmap);
> >
> > if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
> > young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_test_age_gfn(kvm, range);
> >
> > return young;
>
>
> Yeah I think this is the right thing to do. Given your other
> suggestions (on patch 3), I think this will look something like this
> -- let me know if I've misunderstood something:
>
> bool check_rmap = !bitmap && kvm_memslot_have_rmaps(kvm);
>
> if (check_rmap)
> KVM_MMU_LOCK(kvm);
>
> rcu_read_lock(); // perhaps only do this when we don't take the MMU lock?
>
> if (check_rmap)
> kvm_handle_gfn_range(/* ... */ kvm_test_age_rmap)
>
> if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
> kvm_tdp_mmu_test_age_gfn() // modified to be RCU-safe
>
> rcu_read_unlock();
> if (check_rmap)
> KVM_MMU_UNLOCK(kvm);

I was thinking a little different. If you follow my suggestion to first
make the TDP MMU aging lockless, you'll end up with something like this
prior to adding bitmap support (note: the comments are just for
demonstrative purposes):

bool kvm_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
{
bool young = false;

/* Shadow MMU aging holds write-lock. */
if (kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm)) {
write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_age_rmap);
write_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
}

/* TDM MMU aging is lockless. */
if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(kvm, range);

return young;
}

Then when you add bitmap support it would look something like this:

bool kvm_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
{
unsigned long *bitmap = range->arg.metadata->bitmap;
bool young = false;

/* SHadow MMU aging holds write-lock and does not support bitmap. */
if (kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm) && !bitmap) {
write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_age_rmap);
write_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
}

/* TDM MMU aging is lockless and supports bitmap. */
if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(kvm, range);

return young;
}

rcu_read_lock/unlock() would be called in kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range().

That brings up a question I've been wondering about. If KVM only
advertises support for the bitmap lookaround when shadow roots are not
allocated, does that mean MGLRU will be blind to accesses made by L2
when nested virtualization is enabled? And does that mean the Linux MM
will think all L2 memory is cold (i.e. good candidate for swapping)
because it isn't seeing accesses made by L2?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 16:47    [W:0.126 / U:0.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site