[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <95a27dfd-bb41-cf32-acd3-f6fdf3780d15@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 18:00:14 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sergio Lopez <slp@...hat.com>, Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, tony.luck@...el.com,
npmccallum@...hat.com, brijesh.ksingh@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 RFC v4 10/40] x86/fault: Add support to handle the
RMP fault for user address
On 7/7/21 8:35 PM, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -4407,6 +4407,15 @@ static vm_fault_t handle_pte_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int handle_split_page_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> +{
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT))
> + return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> +
> + __split_huge_pmd(vmf->vma, vmf->pmd, vmf->address, false, NULL);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
I think back in v1 Dave asked if khugepaged will just coalesce this back, and it
wasn't ever answered AFAICS.
I've checked the code and I think the answer is: no. Khugepaged isn't designed
to coalesce a pte-mapped hugepage back to pmd in place. And the usual way (copy
to a new huge page) I think will not succeed because IIRC the page is also
FOLL_PIN pinned and khugepaged_scan_pmd() will see the elevated refcounts via
is_refcount_suitable() and give up.
So the lack of coalescing (in case the sub-page leading to split becomes guest
private again later) is somewhat suboptimal, but not critical.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists