Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/kvm/async_pf: Use separate percpu variable to track the enabling of asyncpf

[Vitaly Kuznetsov]

Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Refer to commit fd10cde9294f ("KVM paravirt: Add async PF initialization
> to PV guest") and commit 344d9588a9df ("KVM: Add PV MSR to enable
> asynchronous page faults delivery"). It turns out that at the time when
> asyncpf was introduced, the purpose was defining the shared PV data 'struct
> kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data' with the size of 64 bytes. However, it made a mistake
> and defined the size to 68 bytes, which failed to make fit in a cache line
> and made the code inconsistent with the documentation.

Oh, I actually though it was done on purpose :-) 'enabled' is not
accessed by the host, it's only purpose is to cache MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_EN.

>
> Below justification quoted from Sean[*]
>
>   KVM (the host side) has *never* read kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data.enabled, and
>   the documentation clearly states that enabling is based solely on the
>   bit in the synthetic MSR.
>
>   So rather than update the documentation, fix the goof by removing the
>   enabled filed and use the separate percpu variable instread.
>   KVM-as-a-host obviously doesn't enforce anything or consume the size,
>   and changing the header will only affect guests that are rebuilt against
>   the new header, so there's no chance of ABI breakage between KVM and its
>   guests. The only possible breakage is if some other hypervisor is
>   emulating KVM's async #PF (LOL) and relies on the guest to set
>   kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data.enabled. But (a) I highly doubt such a hypervisor
>   exists, (b) that would arguably be a violation of KVM's "spec", and
>   (c) the worst case scenario is that the guest would simply lose async
>   #PF functionality.
>
> [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZS7ERnnRqs8Fl0ZF@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
>
> Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/msr.rst   |  1 -
>  arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h |  1 -
>  arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c                | 11 ++++++-----
>  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/msr.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/msr.rst
> index 9315fc385fb0..f6d70f99a1a7 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/msr.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/msr.rst
> @@ -204,7 +204,6 @@ data:
>  		__u32 token;
>  
>  		__u8 pad[56];
> -		__u32 enabled;
>  	  };
>  
>  	Bits 5-4 of the MSR are reserved and should be zero. Bit 0 is set to 1
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
> index 6e64b27b2c1e..605899594ebb 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
> @@ -142,7 +142,6 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data {
>  	__u32 token;
>  
>  	__u8 pad[56];
> -	__u32 enabled;
>  };
>  
>  #define KVM_PV_EOI_BIT 0
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> index b8ab9ee5896c..388a3fdd3cad 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ static int __init parse_no_stealacc(char *arg)
>  
>  early_param("no-steal-acc", parse_no_stealacc);
>  
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(bool, async_pf_enabled);

Would it make a difference is we replace this with a cpumask? I realize
that we need to access it on all CPUs from hotpaths but this mask will
rarely change so maybe there's no real perfomance hit?

>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU_DECRYPTED(struct kvm_vcpu_pv_apf_data, apf_reason) __aligned(64);
>  DEFINE_PER_CPU_DECRYPTED(struct kvm_steal_time, steal_time) __aligned(64) __visible;
>  static int has_steal_clock = 0;
> @@ -244,7 +245,7 @@ noinstr u32 kvm_read_and_reset_apf_flags(void)
>  {
>  	u32 flags = 0;
>  
> -	if (__this_cpu_read(apf_reason.enabled)) {
> +	if (__this_cpu_read(async_pf_enabled)) {
>  		flags = __this_cpu_read(apf_reason.flags);
>  		__this_cpu_write(apf_reason.flags, 0);
>  	}
> @@ -295,7 +296,7 @@ DEFINE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(sysvec_kvm_asyncpf_interrupt)
>  
>  	inc_irq_stat(irq_hv_callback_count);
>  
> -	if (__this_cpu_read(apf_reason.enabled)) {
> +	if (__this_cpu_read(async_pf_enabled)) {
>  		token = __this_cpu_read(apf_reason.token);
>  		kvm_async_pf_task_wake(token);
>  		__this_cpu_write(apf_reason.token, 0);
> @@ -362,7 +363,7 @@ static void kvm_guest_cpu_init(void)
>  		wrmsrl(MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_INT, HYPERVISOR_CALLBACK_VECTOR);
>  
>  		wrmsrl(MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_EN, pa);
> -		__this_cpu_write(apf_reason.enabled, 1);
> +		__this_cpu_write(async_pf_enabled, 1);

As 'async_pf_enabled' is bool, it would probably be more natural to
write

	__this_cpu_write(async_pf_enabled, true);

>  		pr_debug("setup async PF for cpu %d\n", smp_processor_id());
>  	}
>  
> @@ -383,11 +384,11 @@ static void kvm_guest_cpu_init(void)
>  
>  static void kvm_pv_disable_apf(void)
>  {
> -	if (!__this_cpu_read(apf_reason.enabled))
> +	if (!__this_cpu_read(async_pf_enabled))
>  		return;
>  
>  	wrmsrl(MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_EN, 0);
> -	__this_cpu_write(apf_reason.enabled, 0);
> +	__this_cpu_write(async_pf_enabled, 0);

... and 'false' here.

>  
>  	pr_debug("disable async PF for cpu %d\n", smp_processor_id());
>  }

-- 
Vitaly