Message-ID: <6e55db63-debf-41e6-941e-04690024d591@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:25:29 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: "Shah, Amit" <Amit.Shah@....com>,
 "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
 "Roth, Michael" <Michael.Roth@....com>
Cc: "liam.merwick@...cle.com" <liam.merwick@...cle.com>,
 "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "jroedel@...e.de"
 <jroedel@...e.de>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
 "Sampat, Pratik Rajesh" <PratikRajesh.Sampat@....com>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>, "vbabka@...e.cz"
 <vbabka@...e.cz>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
 "linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
 "quic_eberman@...cinc.com" <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>,
 "Kalra, Ashish" <Ashish.Kalra@....com>,
 "ackerleytng@...gle.com" <ackerleytng@...gle.com>,
 "vannapurve@...gle.com" <vannapurve@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 0/5] KVM: gmem: 2MB THP support and preparedness
 tracking changes

>> Sorry for the late reply, it's been a couple of crazy weeks, and I'm
>> trying to give at least some feedback on stuff in my inbox before
>> even
>> more will pile up over Christmas :) . Let me summarize my thoughts:
> 
> My turn for the lateness - back from a break.
> 
> I should also preface that Mike is off for at least a month more, but
> he will return to continue working on this.  In the meantime, I've had
> a chat with him about this work to keep the discussion alive on the
> lists.

So now it's my turn to being late again ;) As promised during the last 
call, a few points from my side.

> 
>> THPs in Linux rely on the following principle:
>>
>> (1) We try allocating a THP, if that fails we rely on khugepaged to
>> fix
>>       it up later (shmem+anon). So id we cannot grab a free THP, we
>>       deffer it to a later point.
>>
>> (2) We try to be as transparent as possible: punching a hole will
>>       usually destroy the THP (either immediately for shmem/pagecache
>> or
>>       deferred for anon memory) to free up the now-free pages. That's
>>       different to hugetlb, where partial hole-punching will always
>> zero-
>>       out the memory only; the partial memory will not get freed up
>> and
>>       will get reused later.
>>
>>       Destroying a THP for shmem/pagecache only works if there are no
>>       unexpected page references, so there can be cases where we fail
>> to
>>       free up memory. For the pagecache that's not really
>>       an issue, because memory reclaim will fix that up at some point.
>> For
>>       shmem, there  were discussions to do scan for 0ed pages and free
>>       them up during memory reclaim, just like we do now for anon
>> memory
>>        as well.
>>
>> (3) Memory compaction is vital for guaranteeing that we will be able
>> to
>>       create THPs the longer the system was running,
>>
>>
>> With guest_memfd we cannot rely on any daemon to fix it up as in (1)
>> for
>> us later (would require page memory migration support).
> 
> True.  And not having a huge page when requested to begin with (as in 1
> above) beats the purpose entirely -- the point is to speed up SEV-SNP
> setup and guests by having fewer pages to work with.

Right.

> 
>> We use truncate_inode_pages_range(), which will split a THP into
>> small
>> pages if you partially punch-hole it, so (2) would apply; splitting
>> might fail as well in some cases if there are unexpected references.
>>
>> I wonder what would happen if user space would punch a hole in
>> private
>> memory, making truncate_inode_pages_range() overwrite it with 0s if
>> splitting the THP failed (memory write to private pages under TDX?).
>> Maybe something similar would happen if a private page would get 0-ed
>> out when freeing+reallocating it, not sure how that is handled.
>>
>>
>> guest_memfd currently actively works against (3) as soon as we (A)
>> fallback to allocating small pages or (B) split a THP due to hole
>> punching, as the remaining fragments cannot get reassembled anymore.
>>
>> I assume there is some truth to "hole-punching is a userspace
>> policy",
>> but this mechanism will actively work against itself as soon as you
>> start falling back to small pages in any way.
>>
>>
>>
>> So I'm wondering if a better start would be to (A) always allocate
>> huge
>> pages from the buddy (no fallback) and
> 
> that sounds fine..
> 
>> (B) partial punches are either
>> disallowed or only zero-out the memory. But even a sequence of
>> partial
>> punches that cover the whole huge page will not end up freeing all
>> parts
>> if splitting failed at some point, which I quite dislike ...
> 
> ... this  basically just looks like hugetlb support (i.e. without the
> "transparent" part), isn't it?

Yes, just using a different allocator until we have a predictable 
allocator with reserves.

Note that I am not sure how much "transparent" here really applies, 
given the differences to THPs ...

> 
>> But then we'd need memory preallocation, and I suspect to make this
>> really useful -- just like with 2M/1G "hugetlb" support -- in-place
>> shared<->private conversion will be a requirement. ... at which point
>> we'd have reached the state where it's almost the 2M hugetlb support.
> 
> Right, exactly.
> 
>> This is not a very strong push back, more a "this does not quite
>> sound
>> right to me" and I have the feeling that this might get in the way of
>> in-place shared<->private conversion; I might be wrong about the
>> latter
>> though.

As discussed in the last bi-weekly MM meeting (and in contrast to what I 
assumed), Vishal was right: we should be able to support in-place 
shared<->private conversion as long as we can split a large folio when 
any page of it is getting converted to shared.

(split is possible if there are no unexpected folio references; private 
pages cannot be GUP'ed, so it is feasible)

So similar to the hugetlb work, that split would happen and would be a 
bit "easier", because ordinary folios (in contrast to hugetlb) are 
prepared to be split.

So supporting larger folios for private memory might not make in-place 
conversion significantly harder; the important part is that shared 
folios may only be small.

The split would just mean that we start exposing individual small folios 
to the core-mm, not that we would allow page migration for the shared 
parts etc. So the "whole 2M chunk" will remain allocated to guest_memfd.

> 
> TBH my 2c are that getting hugepage supported, and disabling THP for
> SEV-SNP guests will work fine.

Likely it will not be that easy as soon as hugetlb reserves etc. will 
come into play.

> 
> But as Mike mentioned above, this series is to add a user on top of
> Paolo's work - and that seems more straightforward to experiment with
> and figure out hugepage support in general while getting all the other
> hugepage details done in parallel.

I would suggest to not call this "THP". Maybe we can call it "2M folio 
support" for gmem.

Similar to other FSes, we could just not limit ourselves to 2M folios, 
and simply allocate any large folios. But sticking to 2M might be 
beneficial in regards to memory fragmentation (below).

> 
>> With memory compaction working for guest_memfd, it would all be
>> easier.
> 
> ... btw do you know how well this is coming along?

People have been talking about that, but I suspect this is very 
long-term material.

> 
>> Note that I'm not quite sure about the "2MB" interface, should it be
>> a
>> "PMD-size" interface?
> 
> I think Mike and I touched upon this aspect too - and I may be
> misremembering - Mike suggested getting 1M, 2M, and bigger page sizes
> in increments -- and then fitting in PMD sizes when we've had enough of
> those.  That is to say he didn't want to preclude it, or gate the PMD
> work on enabling all sizes first.

Starting with 2M is reasonable for now. The real question is how we want 
to deal with

(a) Not being able to allocate a 2M folio reliably
(b) Partial discarding

Using only (unmovable) 2M folios would effectively not cause any real 
memory fragmentation in the system, because memory compaction operates 
on 2M pageblocks on x86. So that feels quite compelling.

Ideally we'd have a 2M pagepool from which guest_memfd would allocate 
pages and to which it would putback pages. Yes, this sound similar to 
hugetlb, but might be much easier to implement, because we are not 
limited by some of the hugetlb design decisions (HVO, not being able to 
partially map them, etc.).

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists