From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@suse.com>,
Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 1/8] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 23:38:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6c976344-fdd6-95cd-2cb0-b0e817bf0392@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220409155423.iv2arckmvavvpegt@box.shutemov.name>
On 4/9/22 08:54, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 11:55:43AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> The page allocator is modified to accept pages on the first allocation.
>>> PageUnaccepted() is used to indicate that the page requires acceptance.
>>
>> Does this consume an actual page flag or is it aliased?
>
> It is encoded as a page type in mapcount of unallocated memory. It is not
> aliased with PageOffline() as I did before.
>
> I will mention that it is a new page type.
Guess I should have looked at the code. :)
Are we just increasingly using the StudlyNames() for anything to do with
pages?
>>> + /*
>>> + * PageUnaccepted() indicates that the page has to be "accepted" before it can
>>> + * be used. Page allocator has to call accept_page() before returning the page
>>> + * to the caller.
>>> + */
>>
>> Let's talk about "used" with a bit more detail. Maybe:
>>
>> /*
>> * PageUnaccepted() indicates that the page has to be "accepted" before
>> * it can be read or written. The page allocator must to call
>> * accept_page() before touching the page or returning it to the caller.
>> */
>
> I guess s/must to call/must call/, right?
Yep.
...
>>> + /*
>>> + * Check if the page needs to be marked as PageUnaccepted().
>>> + * Used for the new pages added to the buddy allocator for the first
>>> + * time.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!unaccepted && (fpi_flags & FPI_UNACCEPTED))
>>> + unaccepted = page_is_unaccepted(page, order);
>>
>> if (page_needs_acceptance && (fpi_flags & FPI_UNACCEPTED))
>> page_needs_acceptance = page_is_unaccepted(page, order);
>>
>>> + if (unaccepted)
>>> + __SetPageUnaccepted(page);
>>
>> This is getting hard for me to follow.
>>
>> There are:
>> 1. Pages that come in here with PageUnaccepted()==1
>> 2. Pages that come in here with PageUnaccepted()==0, but a buddy that
>> was PageUnaccepted()==1
>>
>> In either of those cases, the bitmap will be consulted to see if the
>> page is *truly* unaccepted or not. But, I'm struggling to figure out
>> how a page could end up in one of those scenarios and *not* be
>> page_is_unaccepted().
>>
>> There are three pieces of information that come in:
>> 1. PageUnaccepted(page)
>> 2. PageUnaccepted(buddies[])
>> 3. the bitmap
>
> 1 and 2 are the same conceptionally: merged-in pieces of the resulting page.
>
>>
>> and one piece of information going out:
>>
>> PageUnaccepted(page);
>>
>> I think I need a more coherent description of how those four things fit
>> together.
>
> The page gets marked as PageUnaccepted() if any of merged-in pages is
> PageUnaccepted().
>
> For new pages, just being added to buddy allocator, consult
> page_is_unaccepted(). FPI_UNACCEPTED indicates that the page is new and
> page_is_unaccepted() check is required.
>
> Avoid calling page_is_unaccepted() if it is known that the page needs
> acceptance anyway. It can be costly.
>
> Is it good enough explanation?
Yeah, elaborating on the slow and fast paths makes a lot of sense.
> FPI_UNACCEPTED is not a good name. Any help with a better one?
> FPI_CHECK_UNACCEPTED?
Maybe even something like FPI_UNACCEPTED_SLOWPATH. Then you can say
that when this is passed in the pages might not have PageUnaccepted()
set and the slow bitmap needs to be consulted.
>>> if (fpi_flags & FPI_TO_TAIL)
>>> to_tail = true;
>>> else if (is_shuffle_order(order))
>>> @@ -1149,7 +1192,8 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
>>> static inline bool page_expected_state(struct page *page,
>>> unsigned long check_flags)
>>> {
>>> - if (unlikely(atomic_read(&page->_mapcount) != -1))
>>> + if (unlikely(atomic_read(&page->_mapcount) != -1) &&
>>> + !PageUnaccepted(page))
>>> return false;
>>
>> That probably deserves a comment, and maybe its own if() statement.
>
> Own if does not work. PageUnaccepted() is encoded in _mapcount.
>
> What about this:
>
> /*
> * page->_mapcount is expected to be -1.
> *
> * There is an exception for PageUnaccepted(). The page type can be set
> * for pages on free list. Page types are encoded in _mapcount.
> *
> * PageUnaccepted() will get cleared in post_alloc_hook().
> */
> if (unlikely((atomic_read(&page->_mapcount) | PG_unaccepted) != -1))
> return false;
>
> ?
That's better. But, aren't the PG_* names usually reserved for real
page->flags bits? That naming might be part of my confusion.
>>> add_to_free_list(&page[size], zone, high, migratetype);
>>> set_buddy_order(&page[size], high);
>>> }
>>> @@ -2396,6 +2446,9 @@ inline void post_alloc_hook(struct page *page, unsigned int order,
>>> */
>>> kernel_unpoison_pages(page, 1 << order);
>>>
>>> + if (PageUnaccepted(page))
>>> + accept_page(page, order);
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * As memory initialization might be integrated into KASAN,
>>> * KASAN unpoisoning and memory initializion code must be
>>
>> Is accepted memory guaranteed to be zeroed? Do we want to skip the
>> __GFP_ZERO behavior later in this function? Or is that just a silly
>> over-optimization?
>
> For TDX, it is true that the memory gets cleared on acceptance, but I
> don't we can say the same for any possible implementation.
>
> I would rather leave __GFP_ZERO for peace of mind. Clearing the cache-hot
> page for the second time shouldn't be a big deal comparing to acceptance
> cost.
Sure, fair enough.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-11 6:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-05 23:43 [PATCHv4 0/8] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 1/8] mm: Add " Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 18:55 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 15:54 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-11 6:38 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2022-04-11 10:07 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-04-13 11:40 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-13 14:48 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-04-13 15:15 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-13 20:06 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-04-11 8:47 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-08 19:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-08 19:11 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 17:52 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-11 6:41 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-11 15:55 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-11 16:27 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-11 18:55 ` Tom Lendacky
2022-04-12 8:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-12 16:08 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-13 10:36 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-13 11:30 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-13 11:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-13 15:36 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-13 16:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-13 16:13 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-13 16:24 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-13 14:39 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 2/8] efi/x86: Get full memory map in allocate_e820() Kirill A. Shutemov
[not found] ` <Ylae+bejPzRMPrDw@zn.tnic>
2022-04-13 11:45 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 3/8] efi/x86: Implement support for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 17:26 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 19:41 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-14 15:55 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-15 22:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-18 15:55 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-18 16:38 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-18 20:24 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-18 21:01 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-18 23:50 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-19 7:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-19 15:30 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-19 16:38 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-19 19:23 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-21 12:26 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-22 0:21 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-22 9:30 ` Borislav Petkov
2022-04-22 13:26 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 4/8] x86/boot/compressed: Handle " Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 17:57 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 20:20 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-11 6:49 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 5/8] x86/mm: Reserve unaccepted memory bitmap Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 18:08 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 20:43 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 6/8] x86/mm: Provide helpers for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 18:15 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-08 19:21 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-13 16:08 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 7/8] x86/tdx: Unaccepted memory support Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-08 18:28 ` Dave Hansen
2022-04-05 23:43 ` [PATCHv4 8/8] mm/vmstat: Add counter for memory accepting Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-12 8:18 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-04-08 17:02 ` [PATCHv4 0/8] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory Dave Hansen
2022-04-09 23:44 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-04-21 12:29 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6c976344-fdd6-95cd-2cb0-b0e817bf0392@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dfaggioli@suse.com \
--cc=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=varad.gautam@suse.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).