linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 kernel 3/5] virtio-balloon: implementation of VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_CHUNK

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170310211037-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2017 21:10:53 +0200
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>, virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Liang Li <liang.z.li@...el.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
        Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Liang Li <liliang324@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 kernel 3/5] virtio-balloon: implementation of
 VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_CHUNK_TRANSFER

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 09:11:44AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 05:58:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > One of the issues of current balloon is the 4k page size
> > assumption. For example if you free a huge page you
> > have to split it up and pass 4k chunks to host.
> > Quite often host can't free these 4k chunks at all (e.g.
> > when it's using huge tlb fs).
> > It's even sillier for architectures with base page size >4k.
> 
> I completely agree with you that we should be able to pass a hugepage
> as a single chunk.  Also we shouldn't assume that host and guest have
> the same page size.  I think we can come up with a scheme that actually
> lets us encode that into a 64-bit word, something like this:
> 
> bit 0 clear => bits 1-11 encode a page count, bits 12-63 encode a PFN, page size 4k.
> bit 0 set, bit 1 clear => bits 2-12 encode a page count, bits 13-63 encode a PFN, page size 8k
> bits 0+1 set, bit 2 clear => bits 3-13 for page count, bits 14-63 for PFN, page size 16k.
> bits 0-2 set, bit 3 clear => bits 4-14 for page count, bits 15-63 for PFN, page size 32k
> bits 0-3 set, bit 4 clear => bits 5-15 for page count, bits 16-63 for PFN, page size 64k

huge page sizes go up to gigabytes.

> That means we can always pass 2048 pages (of whatever page size) in a single chunk.  And
> we support arbitrary power of two page sizes.  I suggest something like this:
> 
> u64 page_to_chunk(struct page *page)
> {
> 	u64 chunk = page_to_pfn(page) << PAGE_SHIFT;
> 	chunk |= (1UL << compound_order(page)) - 1;
> }
> 
> (note this is a single page of order N, so we leave the page count bits
> set to 0, meaning one page).
> 
> > Two things to consider:
> > - host should pass its base page size to guest
> >   this can be a separate patch and for now we can fall back on 12 bit if not there
> 
> With this encoding scheme, I don't think we need to do this?  As long as
> it's *at least* 12 bit, then we're fine.
> 
> > - guest should pass full huge pages to host
> >   this should be done correctly to avoid breaking up huge pages
> >   I would say yes let's use a single format but drop the "normal chunk"
> >   and always use the extended one.
> >   Also, size is in units of 4k, right? Please document that low 12 bit
> >   are reserved, they will be handy as e.g. flags.
> 
> What per-chunk flags are you thinking would be useful?