All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	rppt@kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	ardb@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, brijesh.singh@amd.com,
	dave.hansen@intel.com, dfaggioli@suse.com, jroedel@suse.de,
	linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	luto@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
	peterz@infradead.org, rientjes@google.com,
	sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, seanjc@google.com,
	tglx@linutronix.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
	varad.gautam@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, x86@kernel.org,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3.1 1/7] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:30:41 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220131193041.xuagyispia77ak2g@box.shutemov.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <acc12d73-a7d1-014c-9c07-33251d7d07ee@redhat.com>

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 01:13:49PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30.01.22 17:45, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > UEFI Specification version 2.9 introduces the concept of memory
> > acceptance. Some Virtual Machine platforms, such as Intel TDX or AMD
> > SEV-SNP, requiring memory to be accepted before it can be used by the
> > guest. Accepting happens via a protocol specific for the Virtual Machine
> > platform.
> > 
> > Accepting memory is costly and it makes VMM allocate memory for the
> > accepted guest physical address range. It's better to postpone memory
> > acceptance until memory is needed. It lowers boot time and reduces
> > memory overhead.
> > 
> > Support of such memory requires a few changes in core-mm code:
> > 
> >   - memblock has to accept memory on allocation;
> > 
> >   - page allocator has to accept memory on the first allocation of the
> >     page;
> > 
> > Memblock change is trivial.
> > 
> > The page allocator is modified to accept pages on the first allocation.
> > PageBuddyUnaccepted() is used to indicate that the page requires acceptance.
> > 
> > Kernel only need to accept memory once after boot, so during the boot
> > and warm up phase there will be a lot of memory acceptance. After things
> > are settled down the only price of the feature if couple of checks for
> > PageBuddyUnaccepted() in alloc and free paths. The check refers a hot
> > variable (that also encodes PageBuddy()), so it is cheap and not visible
> > on profiles.
> > 
> > Architecture has to provide three helpers if it wants to support
> > unaccepted memory:
> > 
> >  - accept_memory() makes a range of physical addresses accepted.
> > 
> >  - maybe_mark_page_unaccepted() marks a page PageBuddyUnaccepted() if it
> >    requires acceptance. Used during boot to put pages on free lists.
> > 
> >  - accept_page() makes a page accepted and clears PageBuddyUnaccepted().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > Acked-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>	# memblock
> 
> 
> You should somehow document+check+enforce that page poisoning cannot be
> enabled concurrently, because it cannot possibly work IIUC.

Looking at code again, I now think that sharing the bit with PageOffline()
is wrong. Previously I convinced myself that there's no conflict on the
bit. In the initial version of the patchset, the page acceptance happened
inside del_page_from_free_list() so any removal from the free list lead to
clearing the bit. It is not the case now when acceptance moved to
post_alloc_hook(). __isolate_free_page() and __offline_isolated_pages()
look problematic now.

I will use brand new bit for the flag and rename BuddyUnaccepted to just
Unaccepted, since it can be set with Buddy cleared.

Sounds okay?

> [...]
> 
> > + /*
> > +  * PageBuddyUnaccepted() indicates that the page has to be "accepted" before
> > +  * it can be used. Page allocator has to call accept_page() before returning
> > +  * the page to the caller.
> > +  *
> > +  * PageBuddyUnaccepted() encoded with the same bit as PageOffline().
> > +  * PageOffline() pages are never on free list of buddy allocator, so there's
> > +  * not conflict.
> > +  */
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY
> > +PAGE_TYPE_OPS(BuddyUnaccepted, offline)
> > +#else
> > +PAGE_TYPE_OPS_FALSE(BuddyUnaccepted)
> > +#endif
> 
> Much better.
> 
> > +
> >  extern void page_offline_freeze(void);
> >  extern void page_offline_thaw(void);
> >  extern void page_offline_begin(void);
> > diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> > index d80300392a19..26e5d7cb6aff 100644
> > --- a/mm/internal.h
> > +++ b/mm/internal.h
> > @@ -718,4 +718,19 @@ void vunmap_range_noflush(unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
> >  int numa_migrate_prep(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >  		      unsigned long addr, int page_nid, int *flags);
> >  
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY
> > +static inline void maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(struct page *page,
> > +					      unsigned int order)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void accept_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  #endif	/* __MM_INTERNAL_H */
> > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > index 1018e50566f3..6c109b3b2a02 100644
> > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > @@ -1400,6 +1400,15 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
> >  		 */
> >  		kmemleak_alloc_phys(found, size, 0, 0);
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Some Virtual Machine platforms, such as Intel TDX or AMD SEV-SNP,
> > +	 * require memory to be accepted before it can be used by the
> > +	 * guest.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * Accept the memory of the allocated buffer.
> > +	 */
> > +	accept_memory(found, found + size);
> > +
> >  	return found;
> >  }
> >  
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 3589febc6d31..27b9bd20e675 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1077,6 +1077,7 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
> >  	unsigned int max_order;
> >  	struct page *buddy;
> >  	bool to_tail;
> > +	bool unaccepted = PageBuddyUnaccepted(page);
> >  
> >  	max_order = min_t(unsigned int, MAX_ORDER - 1, pageblock_order);
> >  
> > @@ -1110,6 +1111,10 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
> >  			clear_page_guard(zone, buddy, order, migratetype);
> >  		else
> >  			del_page_from_free_list(buddy, zone, order);
> > +
> > +		if (PageBuddyUnaccepted(buddy))
> > +			unaccepted = true;
> > +
> >  		combined_pfn = buddy_pfn & pfn;
> >  		page = page + (combined_pfn - pfn);
> >  		pfn = combined_pfn;
> > @@ -1143,6 +1148,10 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
> >  done_merging:
> >  	set_buddy_order(page, order);
> >  
> > +	/* Mark page unaccepted if any of merged pages were unaccepted */
> > +	if (unaccepted)
> > +		__SetPageBuddyUnaccepted(page);
> > +
> >  	if (fpi_flags & FPI_TO_TAIL)
> >  		to_tail = true;
> >  	else if (is_shuffle_order(order))
> > @@ -1168,7 +1177,8 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
> >  static inline bool page_expected_state(struct page *page,
> >  					unsigned long check_flags)
> >  {
> > -	if (unlikely(atomic_read(&page->_mapcount) != -1))
> > +	if (unlikely(atomic_read(&page->_mapcount) != -1) &&
> > +	    !PageBuddyUnaccepted(page))
> >  		return false;
> >  
> >  	if (unlikely((unsigned long)page->mapping |
> > @@ -1749,6 +1759,8 @@ void __init memblock_free_pages(struct page *page, unsigned long pfn,
> >  {
> >  	if (early_page_uninitialised(pfn))
> >  		return;
> > +
> > +	maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(page, order);
> >  	__free_pages_core(page, order);
> 
> You'll be setting the page as unaccepted even before it's actually
> PageBuddy(). While that works, I wonder why we call
> maybe_mark_page_unaccepted() at these points.
> 
> Why are we not moving that deeper into the buddy? __free_pages_core() is
> used for any fresh pages that enter the buddy, used outside of
> page_alloc.c only for memory hot(un)plug, so I'd suggest moving it at
> least into there.
> 
> But maybe we'd even move it further down, to the place where we actually
> establish PageBuddy().
> 
> One idea would be adding a new FPI_UNACCEPTED flag, passing it from
> __free_pages_core() only, and calling maybe_mark_page_unaccepted() from
> __free_one_page() after set_buddy_order().
> 
> If in-lining would do its job properly, we'd be left with the
> FPI_UNACCEPTED checks only when called via __free_pages_core(), and we'd
> have that call at a single place right where we mess with PageBuddy().

Okay, this approach looks neat. See fixup below.

But there's down side: maybe_mark_page_unaccepted() cannot be __init
anymore, since it is called from __free_one_page().

Any comments?

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c b/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c
index 2c4ef49a0c9b..a9ce5b918d44 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
 }
 
-void __init maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
+void maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
 {
 	unsigned long *unaccepted_memory;
 	phys_addr_t addr = page_to_phys(page);
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 27b9bd20e675..389a9b5e6d63 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -121,6 +121,12 @@ typedef int __bitwise fpi_t;
  */
 #define FPI_SKIP_KASAN_POISON	((__force fpi_t)BIT(2))
 
+/*
+ * Check if the page needs to be marked as PageBuddyUnaccepted().
+ * Used for the new pages added to the buddy allocator for the first time.
+ */
+#define FPI_UNACCEPTED		((__force fpi_t)BIT(3))
+
 /* prevent >1 _updater_ of zone percpu pageset ->high and ->batch fields */
 static DEFINE_MUTEX(pcp_batch_high_lock);
 #define MIN_PERCPU_PAGELIST_HIGH_FRACTION (8)
@@ -1148,9 +1154,17 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
 done_merging:
 	set_buddy_order(page, order);
 
-	/* Mark page unaccepted if any of merged pages were unaccepted */
-	if (unaccepted)
+	if (unaccepted) {
+		/* Mark page unaccepted if any of merged pages were unaccepted */
 		__SetPageBuddyUnaccepted(page);
+	} else if (fpi_flags & FPI_UNACCEPTED) {
+		/*
+		 * Check if the page needs to be marked as PageBuddyUnaccepted().
+		 * Used for the new pages added to the buddy allocator for the
+		 * first time.
+		 */
+		maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(page, order);
+	}
 
 	if (fpi_flags & FPI_TO_TAIL)
 		to_tail = true;
@@ -1699,7 +1713,8 @@ void __free_pages_core(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
 	 * Bypass PCP and place fresh pages right to the tail, primarily
 	 * relevant for memory onlining.
 	 */
-	__free_pages_ok(page, order, FPI_TO_TAIL | FPI_SKIP_KASAN_POISON);
+	__free_pages_ok(page, order,
+			FPI_TO_TAIL | FPI_SKIP_KASAN_POISON | FPI_UNACCEPTED);
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
@@ -1760,7 +1775,6 @@ void __init memblock_free_pages(struct page *page, unsigned long pfn,
 	if (early_page_uninitialised(pfn))
 		return;
 
-	maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(page, order);
 	__free_pages_core(page, order);
 }
 
@@ -1850,7 +1864,6 @@ static void __init deferred_free_range(unsigned long pfn,
 	if (nr_pages == pageblock_nr_pages &&
 	    (pfn & (pageblock_nr_pages - 1)) == 0) {
 		set_pageblock_migratetype(page, MIGRATE_MOVABLE);
-		maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(page, pageblock_order);
 		__free_pages_core(page, pageblock_order);
 		return;
 	}
-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-01-31 19:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-28 20:58 [PATCHv3 0/7] Implement support for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 1/7] mm: Add " Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-30  8:16   ` Mike Rapoport
2022-01-30 16:45     ` [PATCHv3.1 " Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-31 12:13       ` David Hildenbrand
2022-01-31 16:28         ` David Hildenbrand
2022-01-31 19:30         ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2022-02-01 10:57           ` David Hildenbrand
2022-02-01 11:13           ` David Hildenbrand
2022-01-30 16:48     ` [PATCHv3.1 5/7] x86/mm: Reserve unaccepted memory bitmap Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 2/7] efi/x86: Get full memory map in allocate_e820() Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-31 22:38   ` Dave Hansen
2022-01-31 23:44     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 3/7] efi/x86: Implement support for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 4/7] x86/boot/compressed: Handle " Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 5/7] x86/mm: Reserve unaccepted memory bitmap Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-30  8:39   ` Mike Rapoport
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 6/7] x86/mm: Provide helpers for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 7/7] x86/tdx: Unaccepted memory support Kirill A. Shutemov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20220131193041.xuagyispia77ak2g@box.shutemov.name \
    --to=kirill@shutemov.name \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=dfaggioli@suse.com \
    --cc=jroedel@suse.de \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=varad.gautam@suse.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.