[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] x86/pv: Flush TLB in response to paging structure changes

  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 18:10:18 +0100
  • Authentication-results: esa5.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none
  • Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:10:31 +0000
  • Ironport-sdr: UL76UzMU8x0P3WxZfBQvNqc0HLG6FNzTjs1spCbow5XJ01K8modbxUF4LV9Wc3GiiSJ1/oGQiE UJXMFPP/YZT16YFNcZdxYiXz2c4pK2dWqusUcZuBLBx0h37w8okfdME9HAAVspHy+6Kw5uEmjP 5vTTSrt7OksI/pmLXAq1VOXAnFV4bXAJTaLBEocJtDWPN7X4Gpy6mGYxakvCFWWhrRdCRqdSbH J2+3j5Rp5+McVITilW9EgpD5Xb9vXHQSv2xXXeCorpRDXjviynyRnYSlIvDa1AzdU1iVbu8Sr5 Eck=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 20/10/2020 17:20, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 20/10/2020 16:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 20.10.2020 17:24, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> With MMU_UPDATE, a PV guest can make changes to higher level pagetables.  
>>> This
>>> is from Xen's point of view (as the update only affects guest mappings), and
>>> the guest is required to flush suitably after making updates.
>>> However, Xen's use of linear pagetables (UPDATE_VA_MAPPING, GNTTABOP_map,
>>> writeable pagetables, etc.) is an implementation detail outside of the
>>> API/ABI.
>>> Changes in the paging structure require invalidations in the linear 
>>> pagetable
>>> range for subsequent accesses into the linear pagetables to access non-stale
>>> mappings.  Xen must provide suitable flushing to prevent intermixed guest
>>> actions from accidentally accessing/modifying the wrong pagetable.
>>> For all L2 and higher modifications, flush the full TLB.  (This could in
>>> principle be an order 39 flush starting at LINEAR_PT_VIRT_START, but no such
>>> mechanism exists in practice.)
>>> As this combines with sync_guest for XPTI L4 "shadowing", replace the
>>> sync_guest boolean with flush_flags and accumulate flags.  The sync_guest 
>>> case
>>> now always needs to flush, there is no point trying to exclude the current 
>>> CPU
>>> from the flush mask.  Use pt_owner->dirty_cpumask directly.
>> Why is there no point? There's no need for the FLUSH_ROOT_PGTBL
>> part of the flushing on the local CPU. The draft you had sent
>> earlier looked better in this regard.
> This was the area which broke.  It is to do with subtle difference in
> the scope of L4 updates.
> ROOT_PGTBL needs to resync current (if in use), and be broadcasted if
> other references to the pages are found.
> The TLB flush needs to be broadcast to the whole domain dirty mask, as
> we can't (easily) know if the update was part of the current structure.

Actually - we can know whether an L4 update needs flushing locally or
not, in exactly the same way as the sync logic currently works.

However, unlike the opencoded get_cpu_info()->root_pgt_changed = true,
we can't just flush locally for free.

This is quite awkward to express.




Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.