Re: [PATCH 6/8] KVM: x86/mmu: Check for usable TDP MMU root while holding mmu_lock for read

[Sean Christopherson]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024, Xu Yilun wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 06:09:18PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 06:00:46PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > When allocating a new TDP MMU root, check for a usable root while holding
> > > mmu_lock for read and only acquire mmu_lock for write if a new root needs
> > > to be created.  There is no need to serialize other MMU operations if a
> > > vCPU is simply grabbing a reference to an existing root, holding mmu_lock
> > > for write is "necessary" (spoiler alert, it's not strictly necessary) only
> > > to ensure KVM doesn't end up with duplicate roots.
> > > 
> > > Allowing vCPUs to get "new" roots in parallel is beneficial to VM boot and
> > > to setups that frequently delete memslots, i.e. which force all vCPUs to
> > > reload all roots.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c     |  8 ++---
> > >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > >  arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.h |  2 +-
> > >  3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > index 3c844e428684..ea18aca23196 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > @@ -3693,15 +3693,15 @@ static int mmu_alloc_direct_roots(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  	unsigned i;
> > >  	int r;
> > >  
> > > +	if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
> > > +		return kvm_tdp_mmu_alloc_root(vcpu);
> > > +
> > >  	write_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> > >  	r = make_mmu_pages_available(vcpu);
> > >  	if (r < 0)
> > >  		goto out_unlock;
> > >  
> > > -	if (tdp_mmu_enabled) {
> > > -		root = kvm_tdp_mmu_get_vcpu_root_hpa(vcpu);
> > > -		mmu->root.hpa = root;
> > > -	} else if (shadow_root_level >= PT64_ROOT_4LEVEL) {
> > > +	if (shadow_root_level >= PT64_ROOT_4LEVEL) {
> > >  		root = mmu_alloc_root(vcpu, 0, 0, shadow_root_level);
> > >  		mmu->root.hpa = root;
> > >  	} else if (shadow_root_level == PT32E_ROOT_LEVEL) {
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > > index e0a8343f66dc..9a8250a14fc1 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > > @@ -223,21 +223,52 @@ static void tdp_mmu_init_child_sp(struct kvm_mmu_page *child_sp,
> > >  	tdp_mmu_init_sp(child_sp, iter->sptep, iter->gfn, role);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -hpa_t kvm_tdp_mmu_get_vcpu_root_hpa(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > +static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_tdp_mmu_try_get_root(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  {
> > >  	union kvm_mmu_page_role role = vcpu->arch.mmu->root_role;
> > > +	int as_id = kvm_mmu_role_as_id(role);
> > >  	struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> > >  	struct kvm_mmu_page *root;
> > >  
> > > -	lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > > -
> > > -	/* Check for an existing root before allocating a new one. */
> > > -	for_each_valid_tdp_mmu_root(kvm, root, kvm_mmu_role_as_id(role)) {
> > > -		if (root->role.word == role.word &&
> > > -		    kvm_tdp_mmu_get_root(root))
> > > -			goto out;
> > > +	for_each_valid_tdp_mmu_root_yield_safe(kvm, root, as_id) {
> > 
> > No lock yielding attempt in this loop, why change to _yield_safe version?

Because variants that don't allow yielding, i.e. for_each_valid_tdp_mmu_root()
as of this patch, require mmu_lock be held for write.  Holding mmu_lock for write
is necessary because that simpler version uses list_for_each_entry() and doesn't
grab a reference to the root, i.e. entries on the list could be freed, e.g. by
kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_invalidated_roots().

The _yield_safe() versions don't require the user to want to yield.  The naming
is _yield_safe() because the yield-safe iterators can run with mmu_lock held for
read *or* right.

> Oh, I assume you just want to early exit the loop with the reference to
> root hold.  But I feel it makes harder for us to have a clear
> understanding of the usage of _yield_safe and non _yield_safe helpers.
> 
> Maybe change it back?

No.  There's even a comment above for_each_tdp_mmu_root() (which is
for_each_valid_tdp_mmu_root() as of this patch) that explains the difference.
The rule is essentially, use the yield-safe variant unless there's a good reason
not to.

/*
 * Iterate over all TDP MMU roots.  Requires that mmu_lock be held for write,
 * the implication being that any flow that holds mmu_lock for read is
 * inherently yield-friendly and should use the yield-safe variant above.
 * Holding mmu_lock for write obviates the need for RCU protection as the list
 * is guaranteed to be stable.
 */