Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] KVM: arm64: Add auto DBM support for hardware dirty tracking

[Leonardo Bras]

On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 12:04:24PM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/3/2026 9:33 AM, Tian Zheng wrote:
> > > > > > > > 09, 2026 at 06:40:23PM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
> > > > > > > > > -    if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W)
> > > > > > > > > +    if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W) {
> > > > > > > > >             set |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S2_S2AP_W;
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > +        /*
> > > > > > > > > +         * No DEVICE filter needed here:
> > > > > > > > > relax_perms is only called
> > > > > > > > > +         * on FSC_PERM faults. Device pages
> > > > > > > > > always get full RW from
> > > > > > > > > +         * initial mapping and are never write-protected during
> > > > > > > > > +         * migration, so they never trigger a permission fault.
> > > > > > > > > +         */
> > > > > > > > > +        if (pgt->flags & KVM_PGTABLE_S2_DBM)
> > > > > > > > > +            set |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_HI_S2_DBM;
> > > > > > > > > +    } else {
> > > > > > > > > +        /*
> > > > > > > > > +         * Clear DBM on W→RO downgrade to prevent hardware from
> > > > > > > > > +         * silently upgrading RO+DBM back to W+dirty, which would
> > > > > > > > > +         * bypass KVM's write tracking and cause data corruption.
> > > > > > > > > +         */
> > > > > > > > > +        clr |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_HI_S2_DBM;
> > > > > > > > > +    }
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > This block makes it pretty evident that the DBM bit really *is* the
> > > > > > > > write permission bit. I'd much rather we
> > > > > > > > introduce the concept of dirty
> > > > > > > > state to the page table library and migrate the abstract write
> > > > > > > > permission to the DBM field, even if we don't have FEAT_HAFDBS.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ohh, that's an amazing idea!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thinking about that again...
> > > > > If we adopt the encoding with DBM being the write-permission
> > > > > bit, and all
> > > > > PTEs have it since the start, how can we have lazy-splitting happening?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Only way I think of is removing both DBM and S2_S2AP_W bit
> > > > > from writable
> > > > > PTEs during dirty-track enable, and re-adding them during
> > > > > the first write
> > > > > fault. If we don't remove the DBM bit, systems with HDBSS
> > > > > would just dirty
> > > > > it by hardware, without causing a fault.
> > > > > 
> > > > > DBM=0 would need to happen only in the first write-protect (only on
> > > > > lazy-splitting). All other write-protecting would just clean
> > > > > the S2_S2AP_W
> > > > > bit, as everything is already split.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is that what was intended?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Leo
> > > > > 
> > > > Hi Leo,
> > > > 
> > > > I think the cleanest way to handle this is to simply avoid setting DBM
> > > > on block mappings. If we only set DBM on page-level PTEs, then block
> > > > mappings will naturally stay DBM=0 and trigger a write fault on first
> > > > access — exactly what we need for lazy splitting.
> > > > 
> > > > When the fault occurs, the block gets split into page-level PTEs, and at
> > > > that point we can set DBM=1 on the resulting leaf entries. This way:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Lazy split works naturally (fault -> split -> set DBM=1)
> > > > 
> > > > 2. No need to clear DBM globally at dirty-track enable
> > > > 
> > > > 3. No special handling for block mappings
> > > > 
> > > > So I think global DBM is still viable — we just need to filter out block
> > > > mappings when setting the DBM bit. That way the lazy split path
> > > > is preserved
> > > > without extra complexity.
> > > 
> > > Hi Tian,
> > > 
> > > Humm, but would not that be contrary to what Oliver suggested:
> > > changing the
> > > encoding from the PTE for all entries?
> > > 
> > > (Like, if the PTE is writable, it has to have DBM set)
> > > 
> > > IIUC what you said, on first faulting of the page in the VM:
> > > - If the entry is a page (level-3 leaf) and writable, add DBM
> > > - If it's a block entry (leaf but not a level-3), don't add DBM
> > > 
> > > So after we enable dirty-logging:
> > > - a level-3 entry would not fault, using HDBSS, and
> > > - a block entry would fault, do the splitting, and add DBM to level-3
> > >    entries during the split.
> > > 
> > > If I got that correct, that would be clean indeed.
> > > 
> > > But then we would have a different encoding for block entries and page
> > > entries. In page entries, DBM could be used to say if the page is
> > > writable,
> > > but on block entries one would have to look at the 'dirty-bit'.
> > > 
> > > Would that be ok?
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > Leo
> > > 
> > Hi Leo,
> > 
> > My initial concern was that clearing all DBM bits at the start of
> > migration would be too expensive, so I thought distinguishing between
> > level-3 entries and block entries would be better.
> > 

I think we expect it to be expensive, but since we already clean the 
dirty-bit (ro/rw) bit, we can have both happening in the same write :)

(since we only mark the DBM bit when we fault the memory on lazy-splitting, 
we are expecting to have the same amount of writes to pagetable as we have 
before HDBSS, both on faulting and 1st iteration cleaning)


> > However, I ran a quick test on a 400GB VM (4 vCPUs), and the overhead
> > turned out to be around 30ns — which I think is acceptable.
> 
> Just a quick correction — I misstated the unit in my previous email. The
> overhead for clearing DBM on the 400GB VM (4 vCPUs) was around 32 µs, not 30
> ns.
> 

Oh, that seems more likely :)

Question: is tha above amount of memory initially in Level-1 blocks, 
level-2 blocks or level-3 pages? (aka: were you using explicit/transparent 
hugepages?)

> > 
> > So I think we can go with your approach: simply clear DBM globally in
> > kvm_arch_commit_memory_region() when dirty logging starts, before write-
> > protecting the memslot.
> > 
> > ```
> > void kvm_arch_commit_memory_region(...)
> > {
> >      // ...
> >      if (log_dirty_pages) {
> >          if (change == KVM_MR_DELETE)
> >              return;
> > 
> >          kvm_mmu_clear_dbm_memory_region(kvm, new->id);

Agree, but see the comment above about using the same write that already 
exists, then we are not supposed to see much of a change.

Thanks!
Leo