linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: Impplement support for unaccepted memory

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 20:31:24 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@...e.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: Impplement support for unaccepted memory

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 08:51:01AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> In other words, I buy the boot speed argument.  But, I don't buy the
> "this saves memory long term" argument at all.

Okay, that's a fair enough. I guess there's *some* workloads that may
have memory footprint reduced, but I agree it's minority.

> >> I had expected this series, but I also expected it to be connected to
> >> CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT somehow.  Could you explain a bit how
> >> this problem is different and demands a totally orthogonal solution?
> >>
> >> For instance, what prevents us from declaring: "Memory is accepted at
> >> the time that its 'struct page' is initialized" ?  Then, we use all the
> >> infrastructure we already have for DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT.
> > 
> > That was my first thought too and I tried it just to realize that it is
> > not what we want. If we would accept page on page struct init it means we
> > would make host allocate all memory assigned to the guest on boot even if
> > guest actually use small portion of it.
> > 
> > Also deferred page init only allows to scale memory accept across multiple
> > CPUs, but doesn't allow to get to userspace before we done with it. See
> > wait_for_completion(&pgdat_init_all_done_comp).
> 
> That's good information.  It's a refinement of the "I want to boot
> faster" requirement.  What you want is not just going _faster_, but
> being able to run userspace before full acceptance has completed.
> 
> Would you be able to quantify how fast TDX page acceptance is?  Are we
> talking about MB/s, GB/s, TB/s?  This series is rather bereft of numbers
> for a feature which making a performance claim.
> 
> Let's say we have a 128GB VM.  How much does faster does this approach
> reach userspace than if all memory was accepted up front?  How much
> memory _could_ have been accepted at the point userspace starts running?

Acceptance code is not optimized yet: we accept memory in 4k chunk which
is very slow because hypercall overhead dominates the picture.

As of now, kernel boot time of 1 VCPU and 64TiB VM with upfront memory
accept is >20 times slower than with this lazy memory accept approach.

The difference is going to be substantially lower once we get it optimized
properly.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov