KVM: x86/mmu: Retry fault before acquiring mmu_lock if mapping is changing

Retry page faults without acquiring mmu_lock, and without even faulting
the page into the primary MMU, if the resolved gfn is covered by an active
invalidation.  Contending for mmu_lock is especially problematic on
preemptible kernels as the mmu_notifier invalidation task will yield
mmu_lock (see rwlock_needbreak()), delay the in-progress invalidation, and
ultimately increase the latency of resolving the page fault.  And in the
worst case scenario, yielding will be accompanied by a remote TLB flush,
e.g. if the invalidation covers a large range of memory and vCPUs are
accessing addresses that were already zapped.

Faulting the page into the primary MMU is similarly problematic, as doing
so may acquire locks that need to be taken for the invalidation to
complete (the primary MMU has finer grained locks than KVM's MMU), and/or
may cause unnecessary churn (getting/putting pages, marking them accessed,
etc).

Alternatively, the yielding issue could be mitigated by teaching KVM's MMU
iterators to perform more work before yielding, but that wouldn't solve
the lock contention and would negatively affect scenarios where a vCPU is
trying to fault in an address that is NOT covered by the in-progress
invalidation.

Add a dedicated lockess version of the range-based retry check to avoid
false positives on the sanity check on start+end WARN, and so that it's
super obvious that checking for a racing invalidation without holding
mmu_lock is unsafe (though obviously useful).

Wrap mmu_invalidate_in_progress in READ_ONCE() to ensure that pre-checking
invalidation in a loop won't put KVM into an infinite loop, e.g. due to
caching the in-progress flag and never seeing it go to '0'.

Force a load of mmu_invalidate_seq as well, even though it isn't strictly
necessary to avoid an infinite loop, as doing so improves the probability
that KVM will detect an invalidation that already completed before
acquiring mmu_lock and bailing anyways.

Do the pre-check even for non-preemptible kernels, as waiting to detect
the invalidation until mmu_lock is held guarantees the vCPU will observe
the worst case latency in terms of handling the fault, and can generate
even more mmu_lock contention.  E.g. the vCPU will acquire mmu_lock,
detect retry, drop mmu_lock, re-enter the guest, retake the fault, and
eventually re-acquire mmu_lock.  This behavior is also why there are no
new starvation issues due to losing the fairness guarantees provided by
rwlocks: if the vCPU needs to retry, it _must_ drop mmu_lock, i.e. waiting
on mmu_lock doesn't guarantee forward progress in the face of _another_
mmu_notifier invalidation event.

Note, adding READ_ONCE() isn't entirely free, e.g. on x86, the READ_ONCE()
may generate a load into a register instead of doing a direct comparison
(MOV+TEST+Jcc instead of CMP+Jcc), but practically speaking the added cost
is a few bytes of code and maaaaybe a cycle or three.

Reported-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZNnPF4W26ZbAyGto@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com
Reported-by: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>
Cc: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
Cc: Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240222012640.2820927-1-seanjc@google.com
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions