lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: x86: APICv cleanups
From
On 25/10/21 17:59, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> No, checking for the update is worse and with this example, I can now point
>> my finger on why I preferred the VM check even before: because even though
>> the page fault path runs in vCPU context and uses a vCPU-specific role,
>> overall the page tables are still per-VM.
> Arguably the lack of incorporation into the page role is the underlying bug, and
> all the shenanigans with synchronizing updates are just workarounds for that bug.
> I.e. page tables are never strictly per-VM, they're per-role, but we fudge it in
> this case because we don't want to take on the overhead of maintaining two sets
> of page tables to handle APICv.

Yes, that makes sense as well:

- you can have simpler code by using the vCPU state, but then
correctness requires that the APICv state be part of the vCPU-specific
MMU state. That is, of the role.

- if you don't want to do that, because you want to maintain one set of
page tables only, the price to pay is the synchronization shenanigans,
both those involving apicv_update mutex^Wrwsem (which ensure no one uses
the old state) and those involving kvm_faultin_pfn/kvm_zap_pfn_range (to
ensure the one state used by the MMU is the correct one).

So it's a pick your poison situation.

Paolo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-25 18:07    [W:0.078 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site