linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private 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 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: <1ea62889-1919-bee9-2314-68ead1e72f06@amd.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jul 2022 07:13:45 +0200
From:   "Gupta, Pankaj" <pankaj.gupta@....com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
        "Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
        Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, aarcange@...hat.com,
        ddutile@...hat.com, dhildenb@...hat.com,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM
 guest private memory


>>>>> This is the v7 of this series which tries to implement the fd-based KVM
>>>>> guest private memory. The patches are based on latest kvm/queue branch
>>>>> commit:
>>>>>
>>>>>      b9b71f43683a (kvm/queue) KVM: x86/mmu: Buffer nested MMU
>>>>> split_desc_cache only by default capacity
>>>>>
>>>>> Introduction
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> In general this patch series introduce fd-based memslot which provides
>>>>> guest memory through memory file descriptor fd[offset,size] instead of
>>>>> hva/size. The fd can be created from a supported memory filesystem
>>>>> like tmpfs/hugetlbfs etc. which we refer as memory backing store. KVM
>>>>
>>>> Thinking a bit, As host side fd on tmpfs or shmem will store memory on host
>>>> page cache instead of mapping pages into userspace address space. Can we hit
>>>> double (un-coordinated) page cache problem with this when guest page cache
>>>> is also used?
>>>
>>> This is my understanding: in host it will be indeed in page cache (in
>>> current shmem implementation) but that's just the way it allocates and
>>> provides the physical memory for the guest. In guest, guest OS will not
>>> see this fd (absolutely), it only sees guest memory, on top of which it
>>> can build its own page cache system for its own file-mapped content but
>>> that is unrelated to host page cache.
>>
>> yes. If guest fills its page cache with file backed memory, this at host
>> side(on shmem fd backend) will also fill the host page cache fast. This
>> can have an impact on performance of guest VM's if host goes to memory
>> pressure situation sooner. Or else we end up utilizing way less System
>> RAM.
> 
> Is this in any meaningful way different from a regular VM?

After thinking a bit, Seems 'No'. Except the reclaim decisions system 
would take under memory pressure and also will have to see how well this 
gets stitched with memory tiers in future. But all these are future topics.

Sorry! for the noise.

Thanks,
Pankaj