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 20:54:50 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231129005450.GH1312390@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJD7tkbxhK7XFcf7h+XE2poNuOsFBQFrxZyeFr=9DoEG_acssA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:30:27PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:28 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.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.

Well, we just broke it already, anyone thinking it was only kvm
counters is going to be sad now :) As I understand it was already
described to be more general that kvm so probably nothing to do really

Jason