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

[Leonardo Bras]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 12:01:49PM +0100, Leonardo Bras wrote:
[> On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 11:41:51AM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 8/4/2026 7:10 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 12:54:16PM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 8/4/2026 12:32 AM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 09:57:46PM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 8/3/2026 6:21 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > > > > > > 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)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi, Leo
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Actually, I have thought about this approach too, but if we clear DBM in
> > > > > > kvm_pgtable_stage2_wrprotect(), then during the first round of
> > > > > > migration, we will fault and release RO -> W, and then add DBM.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yeah, that's only for lazy-splitting, though.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But next time, when we migrate the dirty pages in round two, we will run
> > > > > > kvm_pgtable_stage2_wrprotect() again, which will clear DBM again. And
> > > > > > finally, HDBSS will be useless during migration.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Right, on lazy splitting, we have to clean the DBM bit on the
> > > > > write-protect only if it's a block entry (hugepage).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Once it faults for the first time, it will lazy-split, and we don't need to
> > > > > clean the DBM bit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 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?)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm using transparent hugepages. However, if we were to use level-3 stage-2
> > > > > > pages with -mem-prealloc enabled in QEMU, I believe the time cost would be
> > > > > > extremely high — potentially out of our control.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yeah, that's the issue.
> > > > > For this not to explode like this, we need to mark as RO only when the
> > > > > entries are blocks AND we are doing lazy splitting.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We have:
> > > > > Mode	DBM	Dirty bit
> > > > > RO	0	X
> > > > > WC	1	0
> > > > > WD	1	1
> > > > > 
> > > > > On write-protect:
> > > > > - Lazy splitting + block entry (hugepage, level 2-) -> RO
> > > > > - Otherwise					    -> WC
> > > > > 
> > > > > On first fault, the block entry will be lazy-splitten, and we can set DBM=1
> > > > > in every new page.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That way we guarantee that we are not faulting level-3 pages unecessarily,
> > > > > nor need to go through the whole tree setting DBM=1 or DBM=0 on level-3
> > > > > pages.
> > > > > 
> > > > > How does that sound?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Leo
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Leo,
> > > > 
> > > > I've also been thinking about this approach: clear
> > > > KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_HI_S2_DBM when kvm_pgtable_stage2_wrprotect() calls
> > > > stage2_update_leaf_attrs(). And we can check whether a page is a block
> > > > page during the page walk, right?
> > > 
> > > Hi Tian,
> > > That was what I was thinking :)
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So we can check the page level in the walker callback
> > > > stage2_attr_walker(), filter there, clear DBM for block pages and
> > > > preserve DBM on level-3 pages. Something like this:
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > pte &= ~data->attr_clr;      // wrprotect: clears S2AP_W only
> > > > pte |= data->attr_set;
> > > > if (ctx->level < KVM_PGTABLE_LAST_LEVEL)
> > > 
> > > Only on lazy splitting, right?
> > > 
> > > Or maybe we get the DBM bit on during eager splitting...
> > 
> > Hi, Leo
> > 
> > No, it works for both. Whether eager or lazy split, wrprotect always runs
> > before split, so the block DBM is cleared first.
> 
> Hi Tian,
> 
> On eager splitting, why should we ever strip DBM?
> 
> Eager splitting means we won't have to fault to do the splitting, so we can 
> have HAFDBS/HDBSS handle every fault, including the first one that we use 
> for lazy-splitting.
> 
> > 
> > For eager split: wrprotect clears W (W=1->W=0) and strips DBM from the
> > block. Then the block is split into level-3 pages, but since W=0 and DBM
> > depends on W, DBM stays 0. DBM is only set back to 1 during the first write
> > fault (relax_perms: W=0->W=1, which also sets DBM=1).
> 
> I suggest that, on splitting, set all writable level-3 pages with DBM=1.
> If lazy-splitting, that will happen naturally on the first fault's split.
> If eager-splitting that will happen during the split as well. 
> 
> So total solution looks like:
> - Dirty-logging on, walk the memslot pagetable
>   - On block: mark as read-only
>   - On page: mark as writable-clean
> - On splitting: Mark writable block's new pages as writable-clean
> - On fault: after the split, mark the faulting page as writable-dirty
> 
> This should take care of everything, including lazy/eager splitting 
> differences, as well as set the groundwork for HDBSS to work properly.
> 
> What do you think?
> 

I implemented that down, and will send it soon.
Seeing the code will make it easier to understand the idea :) 

Thanks!
Leo