Re: [PATCH v8 2/8] KVM: Extend the memslot to support fd-based private memory

From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	x86@kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
	"Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@google.com>,
	Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	luto@kernel.org, jun.nakajima@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com,
	ak@linux.intel.com, david@redhat.com, aarcange@redhat.com,
	ddutile@redhat.com, dhildenb@redhat.com,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
	Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>,
	mhocko@suse.com, Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
	wei.w.wang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/8] KVM: Extend the memslot to support fd-based private memory
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2022 14:14:03 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y0AJ++m/TxoscOZg@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yz71ogila0mSHxxJ@google.com>

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 03:34:58PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 05:58:03PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:29:07PM +0800, Chao Peng wrote:
> > > > This new extension, indicated by the new flag KVM_MEM_PRIVATE, adds two
> > > > additional KVM memslot fields private_fd/private_offset to allow
> > > > userspace to specify that guest private memory provided from the
> > > > private_fd and guest_phys_addr mapped at the private_offset of the
> > > > private_fd, spanning a range of memory_size.
> > > > 
> > > > The extended memslot can still have the userspace_addr(hva). When use, a
> > > > single memslot can maintain both private memory through private
> > > > fd(private_fd/private_offset) and shared memory through
> > > > hva(userspace_addr). Whether the private or shared part is visible to
> > > > guest is maintained by other KVM code.
> > > 
> > > What is anyway the appeal of private_offset field, instead of having just
> > > 1:1 association between regions and files, i.e. one memfd per region?
> 
> Modifying memslots is slow, both in KVM and in QEMU (not sure about Google's VMM).
> E.g. if a vCPU converts a single page, it will be forced to wait until all other
> vCPUs drop SRCU, which can have severe latency spikes, e.g. if KVM is faulting in
> memory.  KVM's memslot updates also hold a mutex for the entire duration of the
> update, i.e. conversions on different vCPUs would be fully serialized, exacerbating
> the SRCU problem.
> 
> KVM also has historical baggage where it "needs" to zap _all_ SPTEs when any
> memslot is deleted.
> 
> Taking both a private_fd and a shared userspace address allows userspace to convert
> between private and shared without having to manipulate memslots.

Right, this was really good explanation, thank you.

Still wondering could this possibly work (or not):

1. Union userspace_addr and private_fd.
2. Instead of introducing private_offset, use guest_phys_addr as the
   offset.

BR, Jarkko