[PATCH v3 5/7] KVM: x86: Participate in bitmap-based PTE aging

[Yu Zhao]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 3:48 PM James Houghton <jthoughton at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:07 PM David Matlack <dmatlack at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2024-04-19 01:47 PM, James Houghton wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:28 AM David Matlack <dmatlack at google.com> wrote:
> > > > On 2024-04-11 10:08 AM, David Matlack wrote:
> > > > bool kvm_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > > > {
> > > >         bool young = false;
> > > >
> > > >         if (!range->arg.metadata->bitmap && kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm))
> > > >                 young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_age_rmap);
> > > >
> > > >         if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
> > > >                 young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(kvm, range);
> > > >
> > > >         return young;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > bool kvm_test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > > > {
> > > >         bool young = false;
> > > >
> > > >         if (!range->arg.metadata->bitmap && kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm))
> > > >                 young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_test_age_rmap);
> > > >
> > > >         if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
> > > >                 young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_test_age_gfn(kvm, range);
> > > >
> > > >         return young;
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah I think this is the right thing to do. Given your other
> > > suggestions (on patch 3), I think this will look something like this
> > > -- let me know if I've misunderstood something:
> > >
> > > bool check_rmap = !bitmap && kvm_memslot_have_rmaps(kvm);
> > >
> > > if (check_rmap)
> > >   KVM_MMU_LOCK(kvm);
> > >
> > > rcu_read_lock(); // perhaps only do this when we don't take the MMU lock?
> > >
> > > if (check_rmap)
> > >   kvm_handle_gfn_range(/* ... */ kvm_test_age_rmap)
> > >
> > > if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
> > >   kvm_tdp_mmu_test_age_gfn() // modified to be RCU-safe
> > >
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > if (check_rmap)
> > >   KVM_MMU_UNLOCK(kvm);
> >
> > I was thinking a little different. If you follow my suggestion to first
> > make the TDP MMU aging lockless, you'll end up with something like this
> > prior to adding bitmap support (note: the comments are just for
> > demonstrative purposes):
> >
> > bool kvm_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > {
> >         bool young = false;
> >
> >         /* Shadow MMU aging holds write-lock. */
> >         if (kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm)) {
> >                 write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> >                 young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_age_rmap);
> >                 write_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> >         }
> >
> >         /* TDM MMU aging is lockless. */
> >         if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
> >                 young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(kvm, range);
> >
> >         return young;
> > }
> >
> > Then when you add bitmap support it would look something like this:
> >
> > bool kvm_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > {
> >         unsigned long *bitmap = range->arg.metadata->bitmap;
> >         bool young = false;
> >
> >         /* SHadow MMU aging holds write-lock and does not support bitmap. */
> >         if (kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm) && !bitmap) {
> >                 write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> >                 young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_age_rmap);
> >                 write_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> >         }
> >
> >         /* TDM MMU aging is lockless and supports bitmap. */
> >         if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
> >                 young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(kvm, range);
> >
> >         return young;
> > }
> >
> > rcu_read_lock/unlock() would be called in kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range().
>
> Oh yes this is a lot better. I hope I would have seen this when it
> came time to actually update this patch. Thanks.
>
> >
> > That brings up a question I've been wondering about. If KVM only
> > advertises support for the bitmap lookaround when shadow roots are not
> > allocated, does that mean MGLRU will be blind to accesses made by L2
> > when nested virtualization is enabled? And does that mean the Linux MM
> > will think all L2 memory is cold (i.e. good candidate for swapping)
> > because it isn't seeing accesses made by L2?
>
> Yes, I think so (for both questions). That's better than KVM not
> participating in MGLRU aging at all, which is the case today (IIUC --
> also ignoring the case where KVM accesses guest memory directly). We
> could have MGLRU always invoke the mmu notifiers, but frequently
> taking the MMU lock for writing might be worse than evicting when we
> shouldn't. Maybe Yu tried this at some point, but I can't find any
> results for this.

No, in this case only the fast path (page table scanning) is disabled.
MGLRU still sees the A-bit from L2 using the rmap, i.e., the slow path
calling folio_check_references().