Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm: x86/mmu: Reduce the update to the spte in FNAME(sync_page)

[Sean Christopherson]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Sometimes when the guest updates its pagetable, it adds only new gptes
> to it without changing any existed one, so there is no point to update
> the sptes for these existed gptes.
>
> Also when the sptes for these unchanged gptes are updated, the AD
> bits are also removed since make_spte() is called with prefetch=true
> which might result unneeded TLB flushing.

If either of the proposed changes is kept, please move this to a separate patch.
Skipping updates for PTEs with the same protections is separate logical change
from skipping updates when making the SPTE writable.

Actually, can't we just pass @prefetch=false to make_spte()?  FNAME(prefetch_invalid_gpte)
has already verified the Accessed bit is set in the GPTE, so at least for guest
correctness there's no need to access-track the SPTE.  Host page aging is already
fuzzy so I don't think there are problems there.

> Do nothing if the permissions are unchanged or only write-access is
> being added.

I'm pretty sure skipping the "make writable" case is architecturally wrong.  On a
#PF, any TLB entries for the faulting virtual address are required to be removed.
That means KVM _must_ refresh the SPTE if a vCPU takes a !WRITABLE fault on an
unsync page.  E.g. see kvm_inject_emulated_page_fault().

> Only update the spte when write-access is being removed.  Drop the SPTE
> otherwise.

Correctness aside, there needs to be far more analysis and justification for a
change like this, e.g. performance numbers for various workloads.

> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
> index e5662dbd519c..613f043a3e9e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
> @@ -1023,7 +1023,7 @@ static int FNAME(sync_page)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>  	for (i = 0; i < SPTE_ENT_PER_PAGE; i++) {
>  		u64 *sptep, spte;
>  		struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
> -		unsigned pte_access;
> +		unsigned old_pte_access, pte_access;
>  		pt_element_t gpte;
>  		gpa_t pte_gpa;
>  		gfn_t gfn;
> @@ -1064,6 +1064,23 @@ static int FNAME(sync_page)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>  			continue;
>  		}
>  
> +		/*
> +		 * Drop the SPTE if the new protections would result in access
> +		 * permissions other than write-access is changing.  Do nothing
> +		 * if the permissions are unchanged or only write-access is
> +		 * being added.  Only update the spte when write-access is being
> +		 * removed.
> +		 */
> +		old_pte_access = kvm_mmu_page_get_access(sp, i);
> +		if (old_pte_access == pte_access ||
> +		    (old_pte_access | ACC_WRITE_MASK) == pte_access)
> +			continue;
> +		if (old_pte_access != (pte_access | ACC_WRITE_MASK)) {
> +			drop_spte(vcpu->kvm, &sp->spt[i]);
> +			flush = true;
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
>  		/* Update the shadowed access bits in case they changed. */
>  		kvm_mmu_page_set_access(sp, i, pte_access);
>  
> -- 
> 2.19.1.6.gb485710b
>