From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D85EC433EF for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 01:17:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C7DE96B0071; Tue, 10 May 2022 21:17:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C05C96B0072; Tue, 10 May 2022 21:17:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A30FC6B0073; Tue, 10 May 2022 21:17:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D35C6B0071 for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 21:17:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6519D21E4C for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 01:17:20 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79451699040.03.FEF7E0E Received: from mail-lj1-f175.google.com (mail-lj1-f175.google.com [209.85.208.175]) by imf31.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C93A20096 for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 01:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f175.google.com with SMTP id q130so686326ljb.5 for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 18:17:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shutemov-name.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=l/R7CNjWmMZ859kdXkriliqHFZFmcdN2UKowY7vVOHU=; b=8CJByluZYe0dkhytOZ7LANy/Q36T2SzxDWXpHLGeWnfxyvns0y176nq5wqABdl8MuS 8JWwhkw/8Dz/zjo0vYLE6X4ieGVgty19A6fmFFJfTAkZf0XwfmaUvEBa51chzTSw2fNk NCZFjZAzOuQZeVDNUshWB0ME+BKf6rAkRWyRi2suCa4HnC5cIEI70C8pbRMMhYKfUACy lHeDeT9I/k+fOz1ysSaU8nlyyAjEfuSDDWejsXcoXUidz55t1Wl6dZHJV9vvCP+L3IFs RWxkEh2zXcgX0WJ+D7S89UL9SGee8sjbbN4mdh9bgMFty7a0McfOFAswPU9H9kpsEhbS 0otA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=l/R7CNjWmMZ859kdXkriliqHFZFmcdN2UKowY7vVOHU=; b=Tf28cWT+4HT2t/m2tdHp4YmgfXBwdS+OaJuf7WiJNxEGgQ+i0rHtlf/x00huuWlbKt mRPdfYb/wbEumQyy1+0Eh2k30nBchwvw4vaGiNvch+V2c5QrMW8DszR0I2+5X0xuKX/y tRQ2aRIEp5vWf01NaPVNkKCZgJQTp7V8GN2cm5naM7HDVah2oJ291pq5sJX8PMf9JINi XZZkcduzslR3mrywXPaR7FOMIJ7UBr9QPf2X9za9i7f19L5hDYxQ50UJ8GVcWFb7veAN pBL6IoyUf/A2KXZGI6OVC9r3eJRohn4tldISOcx2v1tXAaRR3ADNe4AVqtfbUIobBLwI ls/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532cfIZnPqfh0ukbwdg6a+ZMlwBadhyLZspZtnGAdNPdmUGmGErC MAp9twRMXcHsL9CPBL/Kz+h3zw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyrXOYBkxfOLvXU9Mn81RSN5B1FseXt9b41D13lneI6qmBsXWNhAHs+SC3qXiT0Ejz37PQkVA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a810:0:b0:250:a19f:8b30 with SMTP id l16-20020a2ea810000000b00250a19f8b30mr14868052ljq.397.1652231838459; Tue, 10 May 2022 18:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from box.localdomain ([86.57.175.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c20-20020ac25f74000000b0047255d21187sm62003lfc.182.2022.05.10.18.17.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 10 May 2022 18:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by box.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 78BFE104757; Wed, 11 May 2022 04:19:06 +0300 (+03) Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 04:19:06 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Borislav Petkov Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andy Lutomirski , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Joerg Roedel , Ard Biesheuvel , Andi Kleen , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , David Rientjes , Vlastimil Babka , Tom Lendacky , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Varad Gautam , Dario Faggioli , Dave Hansen , Brijesh Singh , Mike Rapoport , David Hildenbrand , x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 10/12] x86/tdx: Unaccepted memory support Message-ID: <20220511011906.el4m54fns7ilh7fr@box.shutemov.name> References: <20220425033934.68551-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220425033934.68551-11-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220506204423.gu6jrb53kmuxze5r@box.shutemov.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220506204423.gu6jrb53kmuxze5r@box.shutemov.name> X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam11 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9C93A20096 X-Stat-Signature: k3xiwyhqfef6c9i1pd8884wmmasnhug9 Authentication-Results: imf31.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=shutemov-name.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.s=20210112 header.b=8CJByluZ; spf=none (imf31.hostedemail.com: domain of kirill@shutemov.name has no SPF policy when checking 209.85.208.175) smtp.mailfrom=kirill@shutemov.name; dmarc=none X-HE-Tag: 1652231818-602967 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 11:44:23PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > index 7021ec725dd3..e4c31dbea6d7 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > @@ -885,6 +885,7 @@ config INTEL_TDX_GUEST > > > select ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM > > > select X86_MEM_ENCRYPT > > > select X86_MCE > > > + select UNACCEPTED_MEMORY > > > > WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for UNACCEPTED_MEMORY > > Depends on [n]: EFI [=y] && EFI_STUB [=y] && !KEXEC_CORE [=y] > > Selected by [y]: > > - INTEL_TDX_GUEST [=y] && HYPERVISOR_GUEST [=y] && X86_64 [=y] && CPU_SUP_INTEL [=y] && X86_X2APIC [=y] > > > > WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for UNACCEPTED_MEMORY > > Depends on [n]: EFI [=y] && EFI_STUB [=y] && !KEXEC_CORE [=y] > > Selected by [y]: > > - INTEL_TDX_GUEST [=y] && HYPERVISOR_GUEST [=y] && X86_64 [=y] && CPU_SUP_INTEL [=y] && X86_X2APIC [=y] > > Ughh. Any ideas how to get around it? (Except for implementing kexec > support right away?) I reworked this to boot-time kexec disable. > > Also, it doesn't need to be bool - you can simply return accept_size on > > success and 0 on error so that you don't have an I/O argument. > > So on the calling side it would look like: > > accepted = try_accept_one(start, len, PG_LEVEL_1G) > if (accepted) { > start += accepted; > continue; > } > > And the similar for other levels. Is it really better? JFYI, I've reworked it as accepted = try_accept_one(start, len, PG_LEVEL_1G); if (!accepted) accepted = try_accept_one(start, len, PG_LEVEL_2M); if (!accepted) accepted = try_accept_one(start, len, PG_LEVEL_4K); if (!accepted) return false; start += accepted; looks good to me. -- Kirill A. Shutemov