KVM: MMU: lazily drop large spte

Currently, kvm zaps the large spte if write-protected is needed, the later read can fault on that spte. Actually, we can make the large spte readonly instead of making them un-present, the page fault caused by read access can be avoid

The idea is from Avi:

| As I mentioned before, write-protecting a large spte is a good idea,
| since it moves some work from protect-time to fault-time, so it reduces
| jitter.  This removes the need for the return value.

Signed-off-by Xiao Guangrong <[email protected]>

---
Changelog:
v3:
- address Gleb's comments, we make the function return true if flush is needed instead of returning it via pointer to a variable
- improve the changelog

 arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c |   23 +++++++----------------
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c +7 -16

index 42ba85c..ff2fc80 100644
@@ -1106,8 +1106,7 @@ static void drop_large_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep)
 
 /*
  * Write-protect on the specified @sptep, @pt_protect indicates whether
- * spte writ-protection is caused by protecting shadow page table.
- * @flush indicates whether tlb need be flushed.
+ * spte write-protection is caused by protecting shadow page table.
  *
  * Note: write protection is difference between drity logging and spte
  * protection:

@@ -1116,10 +1115,9 @@ static void drop_large_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep)
  * - for spte protection, the spte can be writable only after unsync-ing
  *   shadow page.
  *
- * Return true if the spte is dropped.
+ * Return true if tlb need be flushed.
  */
-static bool
-spte_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep, bool *flush, bool pt_protect)
+static bool spte_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep, bool pt_protect)
 {
 	u64 spte = *sptep;
 

@@ -1129,17 +1127,11 @@ spte_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep, bool *flush, bool pt_protect)
 
 	rmap_printk("rmap_write_protect: spte %p %llx\n", sptep, *sptep);
 
-	if (__drop_large_spte(kvm, sptep)) {
-		*flush |= true;
-		return true;
-	}
-
 	if (pt_protect)
 		spte &= ~SPTE_MMU_WRITEABLE;
 	spte = spte & ~PT_WRITABLE_MASK;
 
-	*flush |= mmu_spte_update(sptep, spte);
-	return false;
+	return mmu_spte_update(sptep, spte);
 }
 
 static bool __rmap_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long *rmapp,

@@ -1151,11 +1143,8 @@ static bool __rmap_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long *rmapp,
 
 	for (sptep = rmap_get_first(*rmapp, &iter); sptep;) {
 		BUG_ON(!(*sptep & PT_PRESENT_MASK));
-		if (spte_write_protect(kvm, sptep, &flush, pt_protect)) {
-			sptep = rmap_get_first(*rmapp, &iter);
-			continue;
-		}
 
+		flush |= spte_write_protect(kvm, sptep, pt_protect);
 		sptep = rmap_get_next(&iter);
 	}
 

@@ -2611,6 +2600,8 @@ static int __direct_map(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t v, int write,
 			break;
 		}
 
+		drop_large_spte(vcpu, iterator.sptep);
+
 		if (!is_shadow_present_pte(*iterator.sptep)) {
 			u64 base_addr = iterator.addr;
 

Signature · 6 lines

1.7.7.6

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Currently, kvm zaps the large spte if write-protected is needed, the later read can fault on that spte. Actually, we can make the large spte readonly instead of making them un-present, the page fault caused by read access can be avoid

The idea is from Avi:

| As I mentioned before, write-protecting a large spte is a good idea,
| since it moves some work from protect-time to fault-time, so it reduces
| jitter.  This removes the need for the return value.

Signed-off-by Xiao Guangrong <[email protected]>