Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Prototype for direct map awareness in page allocator

From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"song@kernel.org" <song@kernel.org>,
	"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"vbabka@suse.cz" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Prototype for direct map awareness in page allocator
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 19:24:32 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230519162432.GG4967@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZGeYgKCFOkzP2fub@google.com>

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@kernel.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.