Re: [PATCH v3 22/28] KVM: x86/mmu: Zap defunct roots via asynchronous worker

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 3/2/22 19:01, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!refcount_read(&kvm->users_count)) {
>> +		kvm_mmu_zap_all(kvm);
>> +		return;
>> +	}
> 
> I'd prefer we make this an assertion and shove this logic to set_nx_huge_pages(),
> because in that case there's no need to zap anything, the guest can never run
> again.  E.g. (I'm trying to remember why I didn't do this before...)

I did it this way because it seemed like a reasonable fallback for any 
present or future caller.

> One thing that keeps tripping me up is the "readers" verbiage.  I get confused
> because taking mmu_lock for read vs. write doesn't really have anything to do with
> reading or writing state, e.g. "readers" still write SPTEs, and so I keep thinking
> "readers" means anything iterating over the set of roots.  Not sure if there's a
> shorthand that won't be confusing.

Not that I know of.  You really need to know that the rwlock is been 
used for its shared/exclusive locking behavior.  But even on ther OSes 
use shared/exclusive instead of read/write, there are no analogous nouns 
and people end up using readers/writers anyway.

>> It passes a smoke test, and also resolves the debate on the fate of patch 1.
> +1000, I love this approach.  Do you want me to work on a v3, or shall I let you
> have the honors?

I'm already running the usual battery of tests, so I should be able to 
post it either tomorrow (early in my evening) or Friday morning.

Paolo