[RFC PATCH v2 3/8] KVM: arm64: Add some HW_DBM related pgtable interfaces

[Catalin Marinas]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 03:52:19PM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> From: Catalin Marinas [mailto:catalin.marinas at arm.com]
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 08:04:39AM +0000, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> > > From: Oliver Upton [mailto:oliver.upton at linux.dev]
> > > > In both cases the 'old' translation should have DBM cleared. Even if the
> > > > PTE were dirty, this is wasted work since we need to do a final scan of
> > > > the stage-2 when userspace collects the dirty log.
> > > >
> > > > Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > I think we can get rid of the above mark_page_dirty(). I will test it to confirm
> > > we are not missing anything here.
> > 
> > Is this the case for the other places of mark_page_dirty() in your
> > patches? If stage2_pte_writeable() is true, it must have been made
> > writeable earlier by a fault and the underlying page marked as dirty.
> > 
> 
> One of the other place we have mark_page_dirty() is in the stage2_unmap_walker().
> And during the testing of this series, I have tried to remove that and
> found out that it actually causes memory corruption during VM migration.
> 
> From my old debug logs:
> 
> [  399.288076]  stage2_unmap_walker+0x270/0x284
> [  399.288078]  __kvm_pgtable_walk+0x1ec/0x2cc
> [  399.288081]  __kvm_pgtable_walk+0xec/0x2cc
> [  399.288084]  __kvm_pgtable_walk+0xec/0x2cc
> [  399.288086]  kvm_pgtable_walk+0xcc/0x160
> [  399.288088]  kvm_pgtable_stage2_unmap+0x4c/0xbc
> [  399.288091]  stage2_apply_range+0xd0/0xec
> [  399.288094]  __unmap_stage2_range+0x2c/0x60
> [  399.288096]  kvm_unmap_gfn_range+0x30/0x48
> [  399.288099]  kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0xe0/0x264
> [  399.288103]  __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0xa4/0x23c
> [  399.288106]  change_protection+0x638/0x900
> [  399.288109]  change_prot_numa+0x64/0xfc
> [  399.288113]  task_numa_work+0x2ac/0x450
> [  399.288117]  task_work_run+0x78/0xd0
> 
> It looks like that the unmap path gets triggered from Numa page migration code
> path, so we may need it there.

I think I confused things (should have looked at the code).
mark_page_dirty() is actually about marking the bitmap for dirty
tracking rather than the actual struct page. The latter is hidden
somewhere deep down the get_user_pages() code.

So yeah, I think we still need mark_page_dirty() in some places as to
avoid losing the dirty information with DBM being turned on.

-- 
Catalin