Re: [PATCH v5.5 26/30] KVM: Keep memslots in tree-based structures instead of array-based ones
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: 2021-11-12 00:51:12
Also in:
kvm, kvm-riscv, kvmarm, linux-mips, linux-riscv, lkml
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
On 04.11.2021 01:25, Sean Christopherson wrote:quoted
- /* - * Remove the old memslot from the hash list and interval tree, copying - * the node data would corrupt the structures. - */ + int as_id = kvm_memslots_get_as_id(old, new); + struct kvm_memslots *slots = kvm_get_inactive_memslots(kvm, as_id); + int idx = slots->node_idx; + if (old) { - hash_del(&old->id_node); - interval_tree_remove(&old->hva_node, &slots->hva_tree); + hash_del(&old->id_node[idx]); + interval_tree_remove(&old->hva_node[idx], &slots->hva_tree); - if (!new) + if ((long)old == atomic_long_read(&slots->last_used_slot)) + atomic_long_set(&slots->last_used_slot, (long)new);Open-coding cmpxchg() is way less readable than a direct call.
Doh, I meant to call this out and/or add a comment. My objection to cmpxchg() is that it implies atomicity is required (the kernel's version adds the lock), which is very much not the case. So this isn't strictly an open-coded version of cmpxchg().
The open-coded version also compiles on x86 to multiple instructions with a branch, instead of just a single instruction.
Yeah. The lock can't be contended, so that part of cmpxchg is a non-issue. But that's also why I don't love using cmpxchg. I don't have a strong preference, I just got briefly confused by the atomicity part.
quoted
+static void kvm_invalidate_memslot(struct kvm *kvm, + struct kvm_memory_slot *old, + struct kvm_memory_slot *working_slot) +{ + /* + * Mark the current slot INVALID. As with all memslot modifications, + * this must be done on an unreachable slot to avoid modifying the + * current slot in the active tree. + */ + kvm_copy_memslot(working_slot, old); + working_slot->flags |= KVM_MEMSLOT_INVALID; + kvm_replace_memslot(kvm, old, working_slot); + + /* + * Activate the slot that is now marked INVALID, but don't propagate + * the slot to the now inactive slots. The slot is either going to be + * deleted or recreated as a new slot. + */ + kvm_swap_active_memslots(kvm, old->as_id); + + /* + * From this point no new shadow pages pointing to a deleted, or moved, + * memslot will be created. Validation of sp->gfn happens in: + * - gfn_to_hva (kvm_read_guest, gfn_to_pfn) + * - kvm_is_visible_gfn (mmu_check_root) + */ + kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot(kvm, old);This should flush the currently active slot (that is, "working_slot", not "old") to not introduce a behavior change with respect to the existing code. That's also what the previous version of this patch set did.
Eww. I would much prefer to "fix" the existing code in a prep patch. It shouldn't matter, but arch code really should not get passed an INVALID slot. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel