All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
	<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
	Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 1/8] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:30:24 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220413113024.ycvocn6ynerl3b7m@box.shutemov.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a458c13f-9994-b227-ff61-bfdfec10bc27@redhat.com>

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 12:36:11PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 12.04.22 18:08, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 4/12/22 01:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> Can we simply automate this using a kthread or smth like that, which
> >> just traverses the free page lists and accepts pages (similar, but
> >> different to free page reporting)?
> > 
> > That's definitely doable.
> > 
> > The downside is that this will force premature consumption of physical
> > memory resources that the guest may never use.  That's a particular
> > problem on TDX systems since there is no way for a VMM to reclaim guest
> > memory short of killing the guest.
> 
> IIRC, the hypervisor will usually effectively populate all guest RAM
> either way right now.

No, it is not usual. By default QEMU/KVM uses anonymous mapping and
fault-in memory on demand.

Yes, there's an option to pre-populate guest memory, but it is not the
default.

> So yes, for hypervisors that might optimize for
> that, that statement would be true. But I lost track how helpful it
> would be in the near future e.g., with the fd-based private guest memory
> -- maybe they already optimize for delayed acceptance of memory, turning
> it into delayed population.
> 
> > 
> > In other words, I can see a good argument either way:
> > 1. The kernel should accept everything to avoid the perf nastiness
> > 2. The kernel should accept only what it needs in order to reduce memory
> >    use
> > 
> > I'm kinda partial to #1 though, if I had to pick only one.
> > 
> > The other option might be to tie this all to DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT.
> >  Have the rule that everything that gets a 'struct page' must be
> > accepted.  If you want to do delayed acceptance, you do it via
> > DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT.
> 
> That could also be an option, yes. At least being able to chose would be
> good. But IIRC, DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT will still make the system get
> stuck during boot and wait until everything was accepted.

Right. It deferred page init has to be done before init.

> I see the following variants:
> 
> 1) Slow boot; after boot, all memory is already accepted.
> 2) Fast boot; after boot, all memory will slowly but steadily get
>    accepted in the background. After a while, all memory is accepted and
>    can be signaled to user space.
> 3) Fast boot; after boot, memory gets accepted on demand. This is what
>    we have in this series.
> 
> I somehow don't quite like 3), but with deferred population in the
> hypervisor, it might just make sense.

Conceptionally, 3 is not different from what happens now. The first time
normal VM touches the page (like on handling __GFP_ZERO) the page gets
allocated on host. It can take very long time if it kicks in direct
reclaim on the host.

The only difference is that it is *usually* slower.

I guest we can make a case for making 1 an option to match pre-populated
use case for normal VMs.

Frankly, I think option 2 is the worst one. You still CPU cycles from the
workload after boot to do the job that may or may not be needed. It is an
half-measure that helps nobody.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-13 11:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-05 23:43 [PATCHv4 0/8] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 1/8] mm: Add " Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 18:55   ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 15:54     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-11  6:38       ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-11 10:07         ` Mike Rapoport
2022-04-13 11:40           ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-13 14:48             ` Mike Rapoport
2022-04-13 15:15               ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-13 20:06                 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-04-11  8:47       ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-08 19:04   ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-08 19:11   ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 17:52     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-11  6:41       ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-11 15:55         ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-11 16:27           ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-11 18:55             ` Tom Lendacky
2022-04-12  8:15     ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-12 16:08       ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-13 10:36         ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-13 11:30           ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2022-04-13 11:32             ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-13 15:36             ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-13 16:07               ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-13 16:13                 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-13 16:24               ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-13 14:39           ` Mike Rapoport
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 2/8] efi/x86: Get full memory map in allocate_e820() Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-13  9:59   ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-13 11:45     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 3/8] efi/x86: Implement support for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 17:26   ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 19:41     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-14 15:55     ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-15 22:24   ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-18 15:55     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-18 16:38       ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-18 20:24         ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-18 21:01           ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-18 23:50             ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-19  7:39               ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-19 15:30                 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-19 16:38                   ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-19 19:23                   ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-21 12:26                 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-22  0:21                 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-22  9:30                   ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-22 13:26                     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 4/8] x86/boot/compressed: Handle " Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 17:57   ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 20:20     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-11  6:49       ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 5/8] x86/mm: Reserve unaccepted memory bitmap Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 18:08   ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 20:43     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 6/8] x86/mm: Provide helpers for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 18:15   ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-08 19:21   ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-13 16:08     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 7/8] x86/tdx: Unaccepted memory support Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 18:28   ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 8/8] mm/vmstat: Add counter for memory accepting Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-12  8:18   ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-08 17:02 ` [PATCHv4 0/8] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 23:44   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-21 12:29     ` Borislav Petkov

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=20220413113024.ycvocn6ynerl3b7m@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.