[v11,18/19] KVM: pfncache: check the need for invalidation under read lock first

Commit Message

Paul Durrant Dec. 19, 2023, 4:11 p.m. UTC

From: Paul Durrant <[e-mail]>

Taking a write lock on a pfncache will be disruptive if the cache is
heavily used (which only requires a read lock). Hence, in the MMU notifier
callback, take read locks on caches to check for a match; only taking a
write lock to actually perform an invalidation (after a another check).

Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <[e-mail]>
Reviewed-by: David Woodhouse <[e-mail]>
---
Cc: Sean Christopherson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <[e-mail]>
Cc: David Woodhouse <[e-mail]>

v10:
 - New in this version.
---
 virt/kvm/pfncache.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Patch

diff --git a/virt/kvm/pfncache.c b/virt/kvm/pfncache.c
index ae822bff812f..70394d7c9a38 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/pfncache.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/pfncache.c
@@ -29,14 +29,30 @@  void gfn_to_pfn_cache_invalidate_start(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start,
 
 	spin_lock(&kvm->gpc_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(gpc, &kvm->gpc_list, list) {
-		write_lock_irq(&gpc->lock);
+		read_lock_irq(&gpc->lock);
 
 		/* Only a single page so no need to care about length */
 		if (gpc->valid && !is_error_noslot_pfn(gpc->pfn) &&
 		    gpc->uhva >= start && gpc->uhva < end) {
-			gpc->valid = false;
+			read_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock);
+
+			/*
+			 * There is a small window here where the cache could
+			 * be modified, and invalidation would no longer be
+			 * necessary. Hence check again whether invalidation
+			 * is still necessary once the write lock has been
+			 * acquired.
+			 */
+
+			write_lock_irq(&gpc->lock);
+			if (gpc->valid && !is_error_noslot_pfn(gpc->pfn) &&
+			    gpc->uhva >= start && gpc->uhva < end)
+				gpc->valid = false;
+			write_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock);
+			continue;
 		}
-		write_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock);
+
+		read_unlock_irq(&gpc->lock);
 	}
 	spin_unlock(&kvm->gpc_lock);
 }