Re: [PATCH 00/16] IOMMU memory observability

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
	alim.akhtar@samsung.com, alyssa@rosenzweig.io,
	asahi@lists.linux.dev, baolu.lu@linux.intel.com,
	bhelgaas@google.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
	david@redhat.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	heiko@sntech.de, iommu@lists.linux.dev, jasowang@redhat.com,
	jernej.skrabec@gmail.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, joro@8bytes.org,
	kevin.tian@intel.com, krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com,
	marcan@marcan.st, mhiramat@kernel.org, mst@redhat.com,
	m.szyprowski@samsung.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	paulmck@kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, robin.murphy@arm.com,
	samuel@sholland.org, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com,
	sven@svenpeter.dev, thierry.reding@gmail.com, tj@kernel.org,
	tomas.mudrunka@gmail.com, vdumpa@nvidia.com,
	virtualization@lists.linux.dev, wens@csie.org, will@kernel.org,
	yu-cheng.yu@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] IOMMU memory observability
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:52:14 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231128235214.GD1312390@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJD7tkZZNhf4KGV+7N+z8NFpJrvyeNudXU-WdVeE8Rm9pobfgQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:03:30PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > Yes, another counter for KVM could be added. On the other hand KVM
> > only can be computed by subtracting one from another as there are only
> > two types of secondary page tables, KVM and IOMMU:
> >
> > /sys/devices/system/node/node0/meminfo
> > Node 0 SecPageTables:    422204 kB
> >
> >  /sys/devices/system/node/nodeN/vmstat
> > nr_iommu_pages 105555
> >
> > KVM only = SecPageTables - nr_iommu_pages * PAGE_SIZE / 1024
> >
> 
> 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.

Jason