[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230519162432.GG4967@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 19:24:32 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"song@...nel.org" <song@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Prototype for direct map awareness in page
allocator
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 08:40:48AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 01:59:00AM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-03-08 at 11:41 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@...nel.org>
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This is a third attempt to make page allocator aware of the direct
> > > > map
> > > > layout and allow grouping of the pages that must be unmapped from
> > > > the direct map.
> > > >
> > > > This a new implementation of __GFP_UNMAPPED, kinda a follow up for
> > > > this set:
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220127085608.306306-1-rppt@kernel.org
> > > >
> > > > but instead of using a migrate type to cache the unmapped pages, the
> > > > current implementation adds a dedicated cache to serve __GFP_UNMAPPED
> > > > allocations.
> > >
> > > It seems a downside to having a page allocator outside of _the_ page
> > > allocator is you don't get all of the features that are baked in there.
> > > For example does secretmem care about numa? I guess in this
> > > implementation there is just one big cache for all nodes.
> > >
> > > Probably most users would want __GFP_ZERO. Would secretmem care about
> > > __GFP_ACCOUNT?
> >
> > The intention was that the pages in cache are always zeroed, so __GFP_ZERO
> > is always implicitly there, at least should have been.
>
> Would it be possible to drop that assumption/requirement, i.e. allow allocation of
> __GFP_UNMAPPED without __GFP_ZERO? At a glance, __GFP_UNMAPPED looks like it would
> be a great fit for backing guest memory, in particular for confidential VMs. And
> for some flavors of CoCo, i.e. TDX, the trusted intermediary is responsible for
> zeroing/initializing guest memory as the untrusted host (kernel/KVM) doesn't have
> access to the guest's encryption key. In other words, zeroing in the kernel would
> be unnecessary work.
Making and unmapped allocation without __GFP_ZERO shouldn't be a problem.
However, using a gfp flag and hooking up into the free path in page
allocator have issues and preferably should be avoided.
Will something like unmapped_alloc() and unmapped_free() work for your
usecase?
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists