Thread (66 messages) 66 messages, 5 authors, 2021-11-26

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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help