[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkbxhK7XFcf7h+XE2poNuOsFBQFrxZyeFr=9DoEG_acssA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 16:30:27 -0800
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alex.williamson@...hat.com, alim.akhtar@...sung.com, alyssa@...enzweig.io,
asahi@...ts.linux.dev, baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, david@...hat.com,
dwmw2@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org, heiko@...ech.de,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, jasowang@...hat.com, jernej.skrabec@...il.com,
jonathanh@...dia.com, joro@...tes.org, kevin.tian@...el.com,
krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, lizefan.x@...edance.com, marcan@...can.st,
mhiramat@...nel.org, mst@...hat.com, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...nel.org, rdunlap@...radead.org,
robin.murphy@....com, samuel@...lland.org, suravee.suthikulpanit@....com,
sven@...npeter.dev, thierry.reding@...il.com, tj@...nel.org,
tomas.mudrunka@...il.com, vdumpa@...dia.com, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
wens@...e.org, will@...nel.org, yu-cheng.yu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] IOMMU memory observability
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:28 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:25:03PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>
> > > > Right, but as I mention above, if userspace starts depending on this
> > > > equation, we won't be able to add any more classes of "secondary" page
> > > > tables to SecPageTables. I'd like to avoid that if possible. We can do
> > > > the subtraction in the kernel.
> > >
> > > What Sean had suggested was that SecPageTables was always intended to
> > > account all the non-primary mmu memory used by page tables. If this is
> > > the case we shouldn't be trying to break it apart into finer
> > > counters. These are big picture counters, not detailed allocation by
> > > owner counters.
> >
> > Right, I agree with that, but if SecPageTables includes page tables
> > from multiple sources, and it is observed to be suspiciously high, the
> > logical next step is to try to find the culprit, right?
>
> You can make that case already, if it is high wouldn't you want to
> find the exact VMM process that was making it high?
>
> It is a sign of fire, not a detailed debug tool.
Fair enough. We can always add separate counters later if needed,
potentially under KVM stats to get more fine-grained details as you
mentioned.
I am only worried about users subtracting the iommu-only counter to
get a KVM counter. We should at least document that SecPageTables may
be expanded to include other sources later to avoid that.
>
> Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists