Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] KVM: arm64: Add auto DBM support for hardware dirty tracking

On 8/4/2026 12:32 AM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 09:57:46PM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/3/2026 6:21 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 12:04:24PM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/3/2026 9:33 AM, Tian Zheng wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 09, 2026 at 06:40:23PM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> -    if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W)
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    if (prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_W) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>               set |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_LO_S2_S2AP_W;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +        /*
>>>>>>>>>>>> +         * No DEVICE filter needed here:
>>>>>>>>>>>> relax_perms is only called
>>>>>>>>>>>> +         * on FSC_PERM faults. Device pages
>>>>>>>>>>>> always get full RW from
>>>>>>>>>>>> +         * initial mapping and are never write-protected during
>>>>>>>>>>>> +         * migration, so they never trigger a permission fault.
>>>>>>>>>>>> +         */
>>>>>>>>>>>> +        if (pgt->flags & KVM_PGTABLE_S2_DBM)
>>>>>>>>>>>> +            set |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_HI_S2_DBM;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    } else {
>>>>>>>>>>>> +        /*
>>>>>>>>>>>> +         * Clear DBM on W→RO downgrade to prevent hardware from
>>>>>>>>>>>> +         * silently upgrading RO+DBM back to W+dirty, which would
>>>>>>>>>>>> +         * bypass KVM's write tracking and cause data corruption.
>>>>>>>>>>>> +         */
>>>>>>>>>>>> +        clr |= KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_HI_S2_DBM;
>>>>>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> This block makes it pretty evident that the DBM bit really *is* the
>>>>>>>>>>> write permission bit. I'd much rather we
>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the concept of dirty
>>>>>>>>>>> state to the page table library and migrate the abstract write
>>>>>>>>>>> permission to the DBM field, even if we don't have FEAT_HAFDBS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ohh, that's an amazing idea!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thinking about that again...
>>>>>>>> If we adopt the encoding with DBM being the write-permission
>>>>>>>> bit, and all
>>>>>>>> PTEs have it since the start, how can we have lazy-splitting happening?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only way I think of is removing both DBM and S2_S2AP_W bit
>>>>>>>> from writable
>>>>>>>> PTEs during dirty-track enable, and re-adding them during
>>>>>>>> the first write
>>>>>>>> fault. If we don't remove the DBM bit, systems with HDBSS
>>>>>>>> would just dirty
>>>>>>>> it by hardware, without causing a fault.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DBM=0 would need to happen only in the first write-protect (only on
>>>>>>>> lazy-splitting). All other write-protecting would just clean
>>>>>>>> the S2_S2AP_W
>>>>>>>> bit, as everything is already split.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that what was intended?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> Leo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Leo,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the cleanest way to handle this is to simply avoid setting DBM
>>>>>>> on block mappings. If we only set DBM on page-level PTEs, then block
>>>>>>> mappings will naturally stay DBM=0 and trigger a write fault on first
>>>>>>> access — exactly what we need for lazy splitting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the fault occurs, the block gets split into page-level PTEs, and at
>>>>>>> that point we can set DBM=1 on the resulting leaf entries. This way:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Lazy split works naturally (fault -> split -> set DBM=1)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. No need to clear DBM globally at dirty-track enable
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. No special handling for block mappings
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think global DBM is still viable — we just need to filter out block
>>>>>>> mappings when setting the DBM bit. That way the lazy split path
>>>>>>> is preserved
>>>>>>> without extra complexity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Tian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Humm, but would not that be contrary to what Oliver suggested:
>>>>>> changing the
>>>>>> encoding from the PTE for all entries?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Like, if the PTE is writable, it has to have DBM set)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIUC what you said, on first faulting of the page in the VM:
>>>>>> - If the entry is a page (level-3 leaf) and writable, add DBM
>>>>>> - If it's a block entry (leaf but not a level-3), don't add DBM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So after we enable dirty-logging:
>>>>>> - a level-3 entry would not fault, using HDBSS, and
>>>>>> - a block entry would fault, do the splitting, and add DBM to level-3
>>>>>>      entries during the split.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I got that correct, that would be clean indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then we would have a different encoding for block entries and page
>>>>>> entries. In page entries, DBM could be used to say if the page is
>>>>>> writable,
>>>>>> but on block entries one would have to look at the 'dirty-bit'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would that be ok?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Leo
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Leo,
>>>>>
>>>>> My initial concern was that clearing all DBM bits at the start of
>>>>> migration would be too expensive, so I thought distinguishing between
>>>>> level-3 entries and block entries would be better.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I think we expect it to be expensive, but since we already clean the
>>> dirty-bit (ro/rw) bit, we can have both happening in the same write :)
>>>
>>> (since we only mark the DBM bit when we fault the memory on lazy-splitting,
>>> we are expecting to have the same amount of writes to pagetable as we have
>>> before HDBSS, both on faulting and 1st iteration cleaning)
>>>
>> Hi, Leo
>>
>> Actually, I have thought about this approach too, but if we clear DBM in
>> kvm_pgtable_stage2_wrprotect(), then during the first round of
>> migration, we will fault and release RO -> W, and then add DBM.
> 
> Yeah, that's only for lazy-splitting, though.
> 
>>
>> But next time, when we migrate the dirty pages in round two, we will run
>> kvm_pgtable_stage2_wrprotect() again, which will clear DBM again. And
>> finally, HDBSS will be useless during migration.
> 
> Right, on lazy splitting, we have to clean the DBM bit on the
> write-protect only if it's a block entry (hugepage).
> 
> Once it faults for the first time, it will lazy-split, and we don't need to
> clean the DBM bit.
> 
>>
>>>
>>>>> However, I ran a quick test on a 400GB VM (4 vCPUs), and the overhead
>>>>> turned out to be around 30ns — which I think is acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> Just a quick correction — I misstated the unit in my previous email. The
>>>> overhead for clearing DBM on the 400GB VM (4 vCPUs) was around 32 µs, not 30
>>>> ns.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, that seems more likely :)
>>>
>>> Question: is tha above amount of memory initially in Level-1 blocks,
>>> level-2 blocks or level-3 pages? (aka: were you using explicit/transparent
>>> hugepages?)
>>>
>>
>> I'm using transparent hugepages. However, if we were to use level-3 stage-2
>> pages with -mem-prealloc enabled in QEMU, I believe the time cost would be
>> extremely high — potentially out of our control.
>>
> 
> Yeah, that's the issue.
> For this not to explode like this, we need to mark as RO only when the
> entries are blocks AND we are doing lazy splitting.
> 
> We have:
> Mode	DBM	Dirty bit
> RO	0	X
> WC	1	0
> WD	1	1
> 
> On write-protect:
> - Lazy splitting + block entry (hugepage, level 2-) -> RO
> - Otherwise					    -> WC
> 
> On first fault, the block entry will be lazy-splitten, and we can set DBM=1
> in every new page.
> 
> That way we guarantee that we are not faulting level-3 pages unecessarily,
> nor need to go through the whole tree setting DBM=1 or DBM=0 on level-3
> pages.
> 
> How does that sound?
> 
> Thanks!
> Leo
> 

Hi Leo,

I've also been thinking about this approach: clear
KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_HI_S2_DBM when kvm_pgtable_stage2_wrprotect() calls
stage2_update_leaf_attrs(). And we can check whether a page is a block
page during the page walk, right?

So we can check the page level in the walker callback
stage2_attr_walker(), filter there, clear DBM for block pages and
preserve DBM on level-3 pages. Something like this:

```
pte &= ~data->attr_clr;      // wrprotect: clears S2AP_W only
pte |= data->attr_set;
if (ctx->level < KVM_PGTABLE_LAST_LEVEL)
     pte &= ~KVM_PTE_LEAF_ATTR_HI_S2_DBM;  // strip DBM from blocks
```

My only concern is whether this breaks Oliver's model of treating DBM as
the write permission bit — though DBM will be set back to 1 once the
block is split into level-3 pages. So the inconsistency is temporary.
But if you think this is acceptable, I'll go with this approach in the
next version.

What do you think?