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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5214AC433F5 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 08:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1350926AbiFAIsI (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2022 04:48:08 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47094 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1350814AbiFAIsF (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2022 04:48:05 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3DA356C00 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 01:48:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1654073282; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=jHxFnf4L5CJt+8ufyNoLjuaskOQrUFWwTAD2sEpLDBg=; b=G7jxuBfaMGGL5QcVmkgjdTtMbhRUb8y8lTm7jSuO6tpRPwDxOyHGy6jdh1s8M2+ITWedO8 RMwfQBZH1O22Oor3HyvAMJH/jvfXANKX6x5yeJ6nj8H4LAoCnzbMZmsLSw5bEjzDKArqB+ rM1AMqRZmwteBhlGjfXvsy82z2+O2hs= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-3-_3wuNh4IMGa5xrv4DmX6kA-1; Wed, 01 Jun 2022 04:48:01 -0400 X-MC-Unique: _3wuNh4IMGa5xrv4DmX6kA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id k5-20020a05600c1c8500b003974c5d636dso810256wms.1 for ; Wed, 01 Jun 2022 01:48:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent :content-language:to:cc:references:from:organization:subject :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jHxFnf4L5CJt+8ufyNoLjuaskOQrUFWwTAD2sEpLDBg=; b=VXcMf+va6oBOC7YIOkhAHOlIhYffP9gVl9BCUwsx8hKA+sViODHRXSGIkvEBml4Pgf GS/kQoBbdeHjMElvDbX0Xop1sfHWhKWvxZ/pJi4AmcjavQ1cENWgBrMY5iwQNoK5aITv jLruGFfoHQnSCR2xHCM/EmCMMI5LZKoAWTvBdvT5om+2YIwjHDGoXpEtmc8ao1UkX4WF ZVwooR394G0x0hTx2dSYCUSZL03dC+9NVYkPljvqNJ5BpRWMgzE/gqa/Iysd/pCKE38i eWI8kUUvSrWe7CrDKVavSuWAtyAuNvzhBT2h563awjDGCXw7OjDwvfM6vDrbOcj684Yj Af2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Uku5Ylngt17mgWt3suFjRdTKvNHTPou4Nf7jLv585GzZVvriS Q3L1DRZTozc2tCcxZyBOUCdtp3+/8PiOvRySgQOwcU210Pmw63cDLTEWWwOwK+tiATrvJn/yjd3 3l9dLNklaVwpNtJPyyQE8fnxN X-Received: by 2002:adf:d1ea:0:b0:210:3e1f:3ea7 with SMTP id g10-20020adfd1ea000000b002103e1f3ea7mr1996147wrd.595.1654073280650; Wed, 01 Jun 2022 01:48:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzuUj4bh0uFZhtOrG4wLRNkxyLjBPGrhqN1jrHdUn8b5DqD5vqVBTnEyWA+4tqxWTRU2sCPCw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:d1ea:0:b0:210:3e1f:3ea7 with SMTP id g10-20020adfd1ea000000b002103e1f3ea7mr1996126wrd.595.1654073280311; Wed, 01 Jun 2022 01:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:cb:c705:2600:951d:63df:c091:3b45? (p200300cbc7052600951d63dfc0913b45.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:cb:c705:2600:951d:63df:c091:3b45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a13-20020a5d456d000000b0021024f82e01sm948294wrc.16.2022.06.01.01.47.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Jun 2022 01:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2022 10:47:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0 Content-Language: en-US To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Joerg Roedel , Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Andi Kleen , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , David Rientjes , Vlastimil Babka , Tom Lendacky , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Varad Gautam , Dario Faggioli , Dave Hansen , Mike Rapoport , marcelo.cerri@canonical.com, tim.gardner@canonical.com, khalid.elmously@canonical.com, philip.cox@canonical.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 References: <20220517153444.11195-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20220517153444.11195-3-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 02/15] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory In-Reply-To: <20220517153444.11195-3-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 17.05.22 17:34, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > UEFI Specification version 2.9 introduces the concept of memory > acceptance. Some Virtual Machine platforms, such as Intel TDX or AMD > SEV-SNP, require memory to be accepted before it can be used by the > guest. Accepting happens via a protocol specific to the Virtual Machine > platform. > > There are several ways kernel can deal with unaccepted memory: > > 1. Accept all the memory during the boot. It is easy to implement and > it doesn't have runtime cost once the system is booted. The downside > is very long boot time. > > Accept can be parallelized to multiple CPUs to keep it manageable > (i.e. via DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT), but it tends to saturate > memory bandwidth and does not scale beyond the point. > > 2. Accept a block of memory on the first use. It requires more > infrastructure and changes in page allocator to make it work, but > it provides good boot time. > > On-demand memory accept means latency spikes every time kernel steps > onto a new memory block. The spikes will go away once workload data > set size gets stabilized or all memory gets accepted. > > 3. Accept all memory in background. Introduce a thread (or multiple) > that gets memory accepted proactively. It will minimize time the > system experience latency spikes on memory allocation while keeping > low boot time. > > This approach cannot function on its own. It is an extension of #2: > background memory acceptance requires functional scheduler, but the > page allocator may need to tap into unaccepted memory before that. > > The downside of the approach is that these threads also steal CPU > cycles and memory bandwidth from the user's workload and may hurt > user experience. > > Implement #2 for now. It is a reasonable default. Some workloads may > want to use #1 or #3 and they can be implemented later based on user's > demands. > > Support of unaccepted memory requires a few changes in core-mm code: > > - memblock has to accept memory on allocation; > > - page allocator has to accept memory on the first allocation of the > page; > > Memblock change is trivial. > > The page allocator is modified to accept pages on the first allocation. > The new page type (encoded in the _mapcount) -- PageUnaccepted() -- is > used to indicate that the page requires acceptance. > > Architecture has to provide two helpers if it wants to support > unaccepted memory: > > - accept_memory() makes a range of physical addresses accepted. > > - memory_is_unaccepted() checks anything within the range of physical > addresses requires acceptance. > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov > Acked-by: Mike Rapoport # memblock [...] > +/* > + * Page acceptance can be very slow. Do not call under critical locks. > + */ > +static void accept_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order) > +{ > + phys_addr_t start = page_to_phys(page); > + int i; > + > + accept_memory(start, start + (PAGE_SIZE << order)); > + __ClearPageUnaccepted(page); > + > + /* Assert that there is no PageUnaccepted() on tail pages */ > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM)) { > + for (i = 1; i < (1 << order); i++) > + VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageUnaccepted(page + i), page + i); > + } > +} > + > +static bool page_is_unaccepted(struct page *page, unsigned int order) Nit: I'd call this page_contains_unaccepted(), otherwise it sounds like we're just testing the flag. > +{ > + phys_addr_t start = page_to_phys(page); > + phys_addr_t end = start + (PAGE_SIZE << order); > + > + return range_contains_unaccepted_memory(start, end); > +} > + [...] > > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA > @@ -1807,6 +1877,9 @@ static void __init deferred_free_range(unsigned long pfn, > return; > } > > + /* Accept chunks smaller than page-block upfront */ > + accept_memory(pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, (pfn + nr_pages) << PAGE_SHIFT); PFN_PHYS() > + > for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++, page++, pfn++) { > if ((pfn & (pageblock_nr_pages - 1)) == 0) > set_pageblock_migratetype(page, MIGRATE_MOVABLE); > @@ -2266,6 +2339,13 @@ static inline void expand(struct zone *zone, struct page *page, > if (set_page_guard(zone, &page[size], high, migratetype)) > continue; > > + /* > + * Transfer PageUnaccepted() to the newly split pages so > + * they can be accepted after dropping the zone lock. > + */ > + if (PageUnaccepted(page)) > + __SetPageUnaccepted(&page[size]); > + > add_to_free_list(&page[size], zone, high, migratetype); > set_buddy_order(&page[size], high); > } > @@ -2396,6 +2476,9 @@ inline void post_alloc_hook(struct page *page, unsigned int order, > */ > kernel_unpoison_pages(page, 1 << order); > > + if (PageUnaccepted(page)) > + accept_page(page, order); Nit: Just move the PageUnaccepted() call into accept_page(), so all type testing and clearing code is in a single location. > + > /* > * As memory initialization might be integrated into KASAN, > * KASAN unpoisoning and memory initializion code must be Apart from that, LGTM. If the temporary clearing of the unaccepted type is ever an issue (e.g., when we want to exclude reading them in /proc/kcore), we can think of ways to avoid that race. Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand -- Thanks, David / dhildenb