Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: x86/mmu: Reload MMU on *every* page pre-fault attempt/iteration

[Sean Christopherson]

On Fri, Aug 07, 2026, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-08-06 at 14:40 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Reload the MMU (which is a nop if the MMU doesn't need to be reloaded) on
> > every attempt to pre-fault a guest page, i.e. when the page fault path
> > signals that the caller should retry.  If the synchronize_srcu_expedited()
> > in kvm_invalidate_memslot() completes before kvm_vcpu_pre_fault_memory()
> > grabs SRCU, but kvm_mmu_reload() in the pre-fault path completes before
> > kvm_invalidate_memslot() triggers x86's "fast zap all", then the pre-fault
> > task will reach kvm_tdp_page_prefault() with an invalid root.
> > 
> > Attempting to fault-in memory with an invalid root ultimately puts
> > kvm_tdp_page_prefault() into an infinite (breakable) retry loop, which
> > manifests most obviously as a hang in the pre_fault_memory_test selftest,
> > but also eventually causes RCU (SRCU?) to complain.
> > 
> >   INFO: rcu_tasks detected stalls on tasks:
> >   000000000cda47bd: .. nvcsw: 6/6 holdout: 1 idle_cpu: -1/25
> >   task:pre_fault_memor state:R  running task     stack:12696
> >   pid:95588 tgid:95588 ppid:95584  task_flags:0x400000 flags:0x00080801
> >   Call Trace:
> >    <TASK>
> >    lock_release+0x4e/0x320
> >    __get_user_pages+0x546/0xcd0
> >    up_read+0x1b/0x30
> >    get_user_pages_unlocked+0xee/0x350
> >    hva_to_pfn+0xd3/0x3d0 [kvm]
> >    lock_release+0x4e/0x320
> >    xa_load+0x5c/0x170
> >    xa_load+0x14c/0x170
> >    __kvm_faultin_pfn+0xd9/0x130 [kvm]
> >    lock_acquire+0x65/0x2b0
> >    lock_release+0x4e/0x320
> >    kvm_mmu_faultin_pfn+0x1e1/0x690 [kvm]
> >    gup_fast_fallback+0x63e/0xdf0
> >    kvm_tdp_page_fault+0xeb/0x140 [kvm]
> >    kvm_mmu_do_page_fault+0x12e/0x200 [kvm]
> >    kvm_arch_vcpu_pre_fault_memory+0x16e/0x200 [kvm]
> >    kvm_vcpu_pre_fault_memory+0xc1/0x1f0 [kvm]
> >    kvm_vcpu_pre_fault_memory+0x116/0x1f0 [kvm]
> >    kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x3a4/0x6b0 [kvm]
> >    clockevents_program_event+0x5d/0x170
> >    __se_sys_ioctl+0x6d/0xb0
> >    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
> >    do_syscall_64+0x10a/0x480
> >    __irq_exit_rcu+0x8e/0x140
> >    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53
> >    </TASK>
> > 
> > Fixes: 6e01b7601dfe ("KVM: x86: Implement kvm_arch_vcpu_pre_fault_memory()")
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> But, did you hit this somehow with an unmodified test and kernel? The log makes
> me think it was hit in a normal test run. (which I failed to reproduce)

Yes and yes.  I often test by running all selftests in parallel.  My guess is that
PREEMPT_LAZY plus oversubscribed CPUs allowed the timing condition to be hit.  It
wasn't anywhere near 100% reproducible on my end either, maybe 1 out of every 10
runs?  20 runs?  (of the entire suite of selftests).

P.S. I was very proud of myself: because the failure was so flaky, I used perf
and bpftrace to debug the issue instead of my usual hack-the-kernel approach. :-)