[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f95f35af-4824-2a2a-7cd0-71d1fda6867a@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 15:03:12 +0200
From: "Gupta, Pankaj" <pankaj.gupta@....com>
To: "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@....com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
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>,
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>, luto@...nel.org,
jun.nakajima@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
david@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com, ddutile@...hat.com,
dhildenb@...hat.com, Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, mhocko@...e.com,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, bharata@....com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
qemu-devel@...gnu.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM
guest private memory
>>> Actually the current version allows you to delay the allocation to a
>>> later time (e.g. page fault time) if you don't call fallocate() on the
>>> private fd. fallocate() is necessary in previous versions because we
>>> treat the existense in the fd as 'private' but in this version we track
>>> private/shared info in KVM so we don't rely on that fact from memory
>>> backstores.
>>
>> Does this also mean reservation of guest physical memory with secure
>> processor (both for SEV-SNP & TDX) will also happen at page fault time?
>>
>> Do we plan to keep it this way?
>
> If you are talking about accepting memory by the guest, it is initiated by
> the guest and has nothing to do with page fault time vs fallocate()
> allocation of host memory. I mean acceptance happens after host memory
> allocation but they are not in lockstep, acceptance can happen much later.
No, I meant reserving guest physical memory range from hypervisor e.g
with RMPUpdate for SEV-SNP or equivalent at TDX side (PAMTs?).
Thanks,
Pankaj
Powered by blists - more mailing lists