Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/18] KVM: Consolidate and optimize MMU notifiers | From | Paolo Bonzini <> | Date | Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:57:17 +0200 |
| |
On 26/03/21 03:19, Sean Christopherson wrote: > The end goal of this series is to optimize the MMU notifiers to take > mmu_lock if and only if the notification is relevant to KVM, i.e. the hva > range overlaps a memslot. Large VMs (hundreds of vCPUs) are very > sensitive to mmu_lock being taken for write at inopportune times, and > such VMs also tend to be "static", e.g. backed by HugeTLB with minimal > page shenanigans. The vast majority of notifications for these VMs will > be spurious (for KVM), and eliding mmu_lock for spurious notifications > avoids an otherwise unacceptable disruption to the guest. > > To get there without potentially degrading performance, e.g. due to > multiple memslot lookups, especially on non-x86 where the use cases are > largely unknown (from my perspective), first consolidate the MMU notifier > logic by moving the hva->gfn lookups into common KVM. > > Applies on my TDP MMU TLB flushing bug fixes[*], which conflict horribly > with the TDP MMU changes in this series. That code applies on kvm/queue > (commit 4a98623d5d90, "KVM: x86/mmu: Mark the PAE roots as decrypted for > shadow paging"). > > Speaking of conflicts, Ben will soon be posting a series to convert a > bunch of TDP MMU flows to take mmu_lock only for read. Presumably there > will be an absurd number of conflicts; Ben and I will sort out the > conflicts in whichever series loses the race. > > Well tested on Intel and AMD. Compile tested for arm64, MIPS, PPC, > PPC e500, and s390. Absolutely needs to be tested for real on non-x86, > I give it even odds that I introduced an off-by-one bug somewhere. > > [*] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210325200119.1359384-1-seanjc@google.com > > > Patches 1-7 are x86 specific prep patches to play nice with moving > the hva->gfn memslot lookups into common code. There ended up being waaay > more of these than I expected/wanted, but I had a hell of a time getting > the flushing logic right when shuffling the memslot and address space > loops. In the end, I was more confident I got things correct by batching > the flushes. > > Patch 8 moves the existing API prototypes into common code. It could > technically be dropped since the old APIs are gone in the end, but I > thought the switch to the new APIs would suck a bit less this way. > > Patch 9 moves arm64's MMU notifier tracepoints into common code so that > they are not lost when arm64 is converted to the new APIs, and so that all > architectures can benefit. > > Patch 10 moves x86's memslot walkers into common KVM. I chose x86 purely > because I could actually test it. All architectures use nearly identical > code, so I don't think it actually matters in the end. > > Patches 11-13 move arm64, MIPS, and PPC to the new APIs. > > Patch 14 yanks out the old APIs. > > Patch 15 adds the mmu_lock elision, but only for unpaired notifications. > > Patch 16 adds mmu_lock elision for paired .invalidate_range_{start,end}(). > This is quite nasty and no small part of me thinks the patch should be > burned with fire (I won't spoil it any further), but it's also the most > problematic scenario for our particular use case. :-/ > > Patches 17-18 are additional x86 cleanups.
Queued and 1-9 and 18, thanks. There's a small issue in patch 10 that prevented me from committing 10-15, but they mostly look good.
Paolo
| |