[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7d664831-a78c-4a4f-5bd6-f0e04463ca7c@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 14:38:57 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
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>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, marcelo.cerri@...onical.com,
tim.gardner@...onical.com, khalid.elmously@...onical.com,
philip.cox@...onical.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 02/14] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory
On 25.07.22 14:23, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:30:36PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> Sure does... *Something* has to manage the cache coherency so that old
>> physical aliases of the converted memory don't write back and clobber
>> new data. But, maybe the hardware is doing that now.
>
> Let's hope.
>
>> Yeah, that two-tier system is the way it's happening today from what
>> I understand. This whole conversation is about how to handle the >4GB
>> memory.
>
> Would it be possible to pre-accept a bunch of mem - think "pre-fault" -
> from userspace?
>
> I.e., I'm thinking some huge process is going to start in the VM, VM
> userspace goes and causes a chunk of memory to be pre-accepted and then
> the process starts and runs more-or-less smoothly as the majority of its
> memory has already been "prepared".
>
> Or does that not make any sense from mm perspective?
>
The less core-MM code to handle unaccepted memory the better. Meaning,
that any kind of additional pre-acceptance (in addition to what we have
here) needs good justification.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists