Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] KVM: guest_memfd: Enforce NUMA mempolicy using shared policy

Ackerley Tng
2025-03-04T00:19:03Z

Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> writes:

> On 2/28/25 18:25, Ackerley Tng wrote:
>> Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com> writes:
>>
>>> Previously, guest-memfd allocations followed local NUMA node id in absence
>>> of process mempolicy, resulting in arbitrary memory allocation.
>>> Moreover, mbind() couldn't be used since memory wasn't mapped to userspace
>>> in the VMM.
>>>
>>> Enable NUMA policy support by implementing vm_ops for guest-memfd mmap
>>> operation. This allows the VMM to map the memory and use mbind() to set
>>> the desired NUMA policy. The policy is then retrieved via
>>> mpol_shared_policy_lookup() and passed to filemap_grab_folio_mpol() to
>>> ensure that allocations follow the specified memory policy.
>>>
>>> This enables the VMM to control guest memory NUMA placement by calling
>>> mbind() on the mapped memory regions, providing fine-grained control over
>>> guest memory allocation across NUMA nodes.
>>>
>>> The policy change only affect future allocations and does not migrate
>>> existing memory. This matches mbind(2)'s default behavior which affects
>>> only new allocations unless overridden with MPOL_MF_MOVE/MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL
>>> flags, which are not supported for guest_memfd as it is unmovable.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>
>>> ---
>>> virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
>>> index f18176976ae3..b3a8819117a0 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
>>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/backing-dev.h>
>>> #include <linux/falloc.h>
>>> #include <linux/kvm_host.h>
>>> +#include <linux/mempolicy.h>
>>> #include <linux/pagemap.h>
>>> #include <linux/anon_inodes.h>
>>>
>>> @@ -11,8 +12,12 @@ struct kvm_gmem {
>>> struct kvm *kvm;
>>> struct xarray bindings;
>>> struct list_head entry;
>>> + struct shared_policy policy;
>>> };
>>>
>>
>> struct shared_policy should be stored on the inode rather than the file,
>> since the memory policy is a property of the memory (struct inode),
>> rather than a property of how the memory is used for a given VM (struct
>> file).
>
> That makes sense. AFAICS shmem also uses inodes to store policy.
>
>> When the shared_policy is stored on the inode, intra-host migration [1]
>> will work correctly, since the while the inode will be transferred from
>> one VM (struct kvm) to another, the file (a VM's view/bindings of the
>> memory) will be recreated for the new VM.
>>
>> I'm thinking of having a patch like this [2] to introduce inodes.
>
> shmem has it easier by already having inodes
>
>> With this, we shouldn't need to pass file pointers instead of inode
>> pointers.
>
> Any downsides, besides more work needed? Or is it feasible to do it using
> files now and convert to inodes later?
>
> Feels like something that must have been discussed already, but I don't
> recall specifics.

Here's where Sean described file vs inode: "The inode is effectively the
raw underlying physical storage, while the file is the VM's view of that
storage." [1].

I guess you're right that for now there is little distinction between
file and inode and using file should be feasible, but I feel that this
dilutes the original intent. Something like [2] doesn't seem like too
big of a change and could perhaps be included earlier rather than later,
since it will also contribute to support for restricted mapping [3].

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZLGiEfJZTyl7M8mS@google.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/d1940d466fc69472c8b6dda95df2e0522b2d8744.1726009989.git.ackerleytng@google.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250117163001.2326672-1-tabba@google.com/T/