Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] vmx: allow ioeventfd for EPT violations

[Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>]

On 08/31/2015 03:46 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 10:53:58AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/30/2015 05:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> Even when we skip data decoding, MMIO is slightly slower
>>> than port IO because it uses the page-tables, so the CPU
>>> must do a pagewalk on each access.
>>>
>>> This overhead is normally masked by using the TLB cache:
>>> but not so for KVM MMIO, where PTEs are marked as reserved
>>> and so are never cached.
>>>
>>> As ioeventfd memory is never read, make it possible to use
>>> RO pages on the host for ioeventfds, instead.
>>
>> I like this idea.
>>
>>> The result is that TLBs are cached, which finally makes MMIO
>>> as fast as port IO.
>>
>> What does "TLBs are cached" mean? Even after applying the patch
>> no new TLB type can be cached.
>
> The Intel manual says:
> 	No guest-physical mappings or combined mappings are created with
> 	information derived from EPT paging-structure entries that are not present
> 	(bits 2:0 are all 0) or that are misconfigured (see Section 28.2.3.1).
>
> 	No combined mappings are created with information derived from guest
> 	paging-structure entries that are not present or that set reserved bits.
>
> Thus mappings that result in EPT violation are created, this makes
> EPT violation preferable to EPT misconfiguration.

Hmm... but your logic completely bypasses page-table-installation, the page
table entry is nonpresent forever for eventfd memory.

>
>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 5 +++++
>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>>> index 9d1bfd3..ed44026 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>>> @@ -5745,6 +5745,11 @@ static int handle_ept_violation(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>   		vmcs_set_bits(GUEST_INTERRUPTIBILITY_INFO, GUEST_INTR_STATE_NMI);
>>>
>>>   	gpa = vmcs_read64(GUEST_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS);
>>> +	if (!kvm_io_bus_write(vcpu, KVM_FAST_MMIO_BUS, gpa, 0, NULL)) {
>>> +		skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
>>> +		return 1;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>
>> I am afraid that the common page fault entry point is not a good place to do the
>> work.
>
> Why isn't it?

1) You always do bus_write even if it is a read access. You can not assume that the
    memory region can't be read by guest.

2) The workload of _bus_write is added for all kinds of page fault, normal #PF is fair
    frequent than #PF happens on RO memory.

3) It completely bypasses the logic of handing RO memslot.

>
>> Would move it to kvm_handle_bad_page()? The different is the workload of
>> fast_page_fault() is included but it's light enough and MMIO-exit should not be
>> very frequent, so i think it's okay.
>
> That was supposed to be a slow path, I doubt it'll work well without
> major code restructuring.
> IIUC by design everything that's not going through fast_page_fault
> is supposed to be slow path that only happens rarely.
>

Do you have performance numbers which compare this patch and the way i figured out?

> But in this case, the page stays read-only, we need a new fast path
> through the code.
>

Another solution is making MMU recognise the RO region which is write-mostly, then
make the page table entry be reserved other than readonly.