[PATCH mm-unstable v1 2/5] kvm/x86: add kvm_arch_test_clear_young()

[Yu Zhao]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:09 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 9:27 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc at google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > index 6aaae18f1854..d2995c9e8f07 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > @@ -1367,6 +1367,12 @@ struct kvm_arch {
> > > >        *      the MMU lock in read mode + the tdp_mmu_pages_lock or
> > > >        *      the MMU lock in write mode
> > > >        *
> > > > +      * kvm_arch_test_clear_young() is a special case. It relies on two
> > >
> > > No, it's not.  The TDP MMU already employs on RCU and CMPXCHG.
> >
> > It is -- you read it out of context :)
>
> Ah, the special case is that it's fully lockless.  That's still not all that
> special, e.g. see kvm_tdp_mmu_walk_lockless_{begin,end}().
>
> >          * For reads, this list is protected by:
> >          *      the MMU lock in read mode + RCU or
> >          *      the MMU lock in write mode
> >          *
> >          * For writes, this list is protected by:
> >          *      the MMU lock in read mode + the tdp_mmu_pages_lock or
> >          *      the MMU lock in write mode
> >          *
> >          * kvm_arch_test_clear_young() is a special case.
> >          ...
> >
> >         struct list_head tdp_mmu_roots;
> >
> > > Just drop the
> > > entire comment.
> >
> > Let me move it into kvm_arch_test_clear_young().
>
> No, I do not want kvm_arch_test_clear_young(), or any other one-off function, to
> be "special".  I love the idea of a lockless walk, but I want it to be a formal,
> documented way to walk TDP MMU roots.  I.e. add macro to go with for_each_tdp_mmu_root()
> and the yield-safe variants.

I see what you mean now. will do.

> /* blah blah blah */
> #define for_each_tdp_mmu_root_lockless(_kvm, _root, _as_id)             \
>         list_for_each_entry_rcu(_root, &kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_roots, link)  \
>                 if (refcount_read(&root->tdp_mmu_root_count) &&         \
>                     kvm_mmu_page_as_id(_root) != _as_id) {              \
>                 } else
>
> > Also I want to be clear:
> > 1. We can't just focus on here and now; we need to consider the distant future.
>
> I 100% agree, but those words need to be backed up by actions.  This series is
> littered with code that is not maintainable long term, e.g. open coding stuff
> that belongs in helpers and/or for which KVM already provides helpers, copy-pasting
> __kvm_handle_hva_range() instead of extending it to have a lockless option, poking
> directly into KVM from mm/ code, etc.
>
> I apologize for being so blunt.  My intent isn't to be rude/snarky, it's to set
> very clear expectations for getting any of these changes merges.

No worries at all. I appreciate you directly telling me how you prefer
it to be done, and that makes the job easier for both of us. Please do
bear with me though, because I'm very unfamiliar with the KVM side of
expectations.

> I asbolutely do
> want to land improvments to KVM's test+clear young flows, but it needs to be done
> in a way that is maintainable and doesn't saddle KVM with more tech debt.

Agreed.

> > 2. From my POV, "see the comments on ..." is like the index of a book.
>
> And my _very_ strong preference is to provide the "index" via code, not comments.

Will do.

> > > Clearing a single bit doesn't need a CMPXCHG.  Please weigh in on a relevant series
> > > that is modifying the aging flows[*], I want to have exactly one helper for aging
> > > TDP MMU SPTEs.
> > >
> > > [*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230211014626.3659152-5-vipinsh@google.com
> >
> > I'll take a look at that series. clear_bit() probably won't cause any
> > practical damage but is technically wrong because, for example, it can
> > end up clearing the A-bit in a non-leaf PMD. (cmpxchg will just fail
> > in this case, obviously.)
>
> Eh, not really.  By that argument, clearing an A-bit in a huge PTE is also technically
> wrong because the target gfn may or may not have been accessed.

Sorry, I don't understand. You mean clear_bit() on a huge PTE is
technically wrong? Yes, that's what I mean. (cmpxchg() on a huge PTE
is not.)

> The only way for
> KVM to clear a A-bit in a non-leaf entry is if the entry _was_ a huge PTE, but was
> replaced between the "is leaf" and the clear_bit().

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Let me be more specific:
1. Clearing the A-bit in a non-leaf entry is technically wrong because
that's not our intention.
2. When we try to clear_bit() on a leaf PMD, it can at the same time
become a non-leaf PMD, which causes 1) above, and therefore is
technically wrong.
3. I don't think 2) could do any real harm, so no practically no problem.
4. cmpxchg() can avoid 2).

Does this make sense?

Thanks.