Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: guest_memfd: Remove preparation tracking

Vishal Annapurve
2025-12-01T01:35:55Z

On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 7:15 PM Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 06:43:14AM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 05:12:55PM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 05:07:57PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> > > > @@ -797,19 +782,25 @@ int kvm_gmem_get_pfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> > > > {
> > > > pgoff_t index = kvm_gmem_get_index(slot, gfn);
> > > > struct folio *folio;
> > > > - bool is_prepared = false;
> > > > int r = 0;
> > > >
> > > > CLASS(gmem_get_file, file)(slot);
> > > > if (!file)
> > > > return -EFAULT;
> > > >
> > > > - folio = __kvm_gmem_get_pfn(file, slot, index, pfn, &is_prepared, max_order);
> > > > + folio = __kvm_gmem_get_pfn(file, slot, index, pfn, max_order);
> > > > if (IS_ERR(folio))
> > > > return PTR_ERR(folio);
> > > >
> > > > - if (!is_prepared)
> > > > - r = kvm_gmem_prepare_folio(kvm, slot, gfn, folio);
> > > > + if (!folio_test_uptodate(folio)) {
> > > > + unsigned long i, nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++)
> > > > + clear_highpage(folio_page(folio, i));
> > > > + folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
> > > Here, the entire folio is cleared only when the folio is not marked uptodate.
> > > Then, please check my questions at the bottom
> >
> > Yes, in this patch at least where I tried to mirror the current logic. I
> > would not be surprised if we need to rework things for inplace/hugepage
> > support though, but decoupling 'preparation' from the uptodate flag is
> > the main goal here.
> Could you elaborate a little why the decoupling is needed if it's not for
> hugepage?

IMO, decoupling is useful in general and we don't necessarily need to
wait till hugepage support lands to clean up this logic. Current
preparation logic has created some confusion regarding multiple
features for guest_memfd under discussion such as generic write, uffd
support, and direct map removal. It would be useful to simplify the
guest_memfd logic in this regard.

>
>
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + r = kvm_gmem_prepare_folio(kvm, slot, gfn, folio);
> > > >
> > > > folio_unlock(folio);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -852,7 +843,6 @@ long kvm_gmem_populate(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn, void __user *src, long
> > > > struct folio *folio;
> > > > gfn_t gfn = start_gfn + i;
> > > > pgoff_t index = kvm_gmem_get_index(slot, gfn);
> > > > - bool is_prepared = false;
> > > > kvm_pfn_t pfn;
> > > >
> > > > if (signal_pending(current)) {
> > > > @@ -860,19 +850,12 @@ long kvm_gmem_populate(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn, void __user *src, long
> > > > break;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - folio = __kvm_gmem_get_pfn(file, slot, index, &pfn, &is_prepared, &max_order);
> > > > + folio = __kvm_gmem_get_pfn(file, slot, index, &pfn, &max_order);
> > > > if (IS_ERR(folio)) {
> > > > ret = PTR_ERR(folio);
> > > > break;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - if (is_prepared) {
> > > > - folio_unlock(folio);
> > > > - folio_put(folio);
> > > > - ret = -EEXIST;
> > > > - break;
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > > folio_unlock(folio);
> > > > WARN_ON(!IS_ALIGNED(gfn, 1 << max_order) ||
> > > > (npages - i) < (1 << max_order));
> > > TDX could hit this warning easily when npages == 1, max_order == 9.
> >
> > Yes, this will need to change to handle that. I don't think I had to
> > change this for previous iterations of SNP hugepage support, but
> > there are definitely cases where a sub-2M range might get populated
> > even though it's backed by a 2M folio, so I'm not sure why I didn't
> > hit it there.
> >
> > But I'm taking Sean's cue on touching as little of the existing
> > hugepage logic as possible in this particular series so we can revisit
> > the remaining changes with some better context.
> Frankly, I don't understand why this patch 1 is required if we only want "moving
> GUP out of post_populate()" to work for 4KB folios.
>
> > >
> > > > @@ -889,7 +872,7 @@ long kvm_gmem_populate(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn, void __user *src, long
> > > > p = src ? src + i * PAGE_SIZE : NULL;
> > > > ret = post_populate(kvm, gfn, pfn, p, max_order, opaque);
> > > > if (!ret)
> > > > - kvm_gmem_mark_prepared(folio);
> > > > + folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
> > > As also asked in [1], why is the entire folio marked as uptodate here? Why does
> > > kvm_gmem_get_pfn() clear all pages of a huge folio when the folio isn't marked
> > > uptodate?
> >
> > Quoting your example from[1] for more context:
> >
> > > I also have a question about this patch:
> > >
> > > Suppose there's a 2MB huge folio A, where
> > > A1 and A2 are 4KB pages belonging to folio A.
> > >
> > > (1) kvm_gmem_populate() invokes __kvm_gmem_get_pfn() and gets folio A.
> > > It adds page A1 and invokes folio_mark_uptodate() on folio A.
> >
> > In SNP hugepage patchset you responded to, it would only mark A1 as
> You mean code in
> https://github.com/amdese/linux/commits/snp-inplace-conversion-rfc1 ?
>
> > prepared/cleared. There was 4K-granularity tracking added to handle this.
> I don't find the code that marks only A1 as "prepared/cleared".
> Instead, I just found folio_mark_uptodate() is invoked by kvm_gmem_populate()
> to mark the entire folio A as uptodate.
>
> However, according to your statement below that "uptodate flag only tracks
> whether a folio has been cleared", I don't follow why and where the entire folio
> A would be cleared if kvm_gmem_populate() only adds page A1.

I think kvm_gmem_populate() is currently only used by SNP and TDX
logic, I don't see an issue with marking the complete folio as
uptodate even if its partially updated by kvm_gmem_populate() paths as
the private memory will eventually get initialized anyways.

>
> > There was an odd subtlety in that series though: it was defaulting to the
> > folio_order() for the prep-tracking/post-populate, but it would then clamp
> > it down based on the max order possible according whether that particular
> > order was a homogenous range of KVM_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTE_PRIVATE. Which is not
> > a great way to handle things, and I don't remember if I'd actually intended
> > to implement it that way or not... that's probably why I never tripped over
> > the WARN_ON() above, now that I think of it.
> >
> > But neither of these these apply to any current plans for hugepage support
> > that I'm aware of, so probably not worth working through what that series
> > did and look at this from a fresh perspective.
> >
> > >
> > > (2) kvm_gmem_get_pfn() later faults in page A2.
> > > As folio A is uptodate, clear_highpage() is not invoked on page A2.
> > > kvm_gmem_prepare_folio() is invoked on the whole folio A.
> > >
> > > (2) could occur at least in TDX when only a part the 2MB page is added as guest
> > > initial memory.
> > >
> > > My questions:
> > > - Would (2) occur on SEV?
> > > - If it does, is the lack of clear_highpage() on A2 a problem ?
> > > - Is invoking gmem_prepare on page A1 a problem?
> >
> > Assuming this patch goes upstream in some form, we will now have the
> > following major differences versus previous code:
> >
> > 1) uptodate flag only tracks whether a folio has been cleared
> > 2) gmem always calls kvm_arch_gmem_prepare() via kvm_gmem_get_pfn() and
> > the architecture can handle it's own tracking at whatever granularity
> > it likes.
> 2) looks good to me.
>
> > My hope is that 1) can similarly be done in such a way that gmem does not
> > need to track things at sub-hugepage granularity and necessitate the need
> > for some new data structure/state/flag to track sub-page status.
> I actually don't understand what uptodate flag helps gmem to track.
> Why can't clear_highpage() be done inside arch specific code? TDX doesn't need
> this clearing after all.

Target audience for guest_memfd includes non-confidential VMs as well.
Inline with shmem and other filesystems, guest_memfd should clear
pages on fault before handing them out to the users. There should be a
way to opt-out of this behavior for certain private faults like for
SNP/TDX and possibly for CCA as well.

>
> > My understanding based on prior discussion in guest_memfd calls was that
> > it would be okay to go ahead and clear the entire folio at initial allocation
> > time, and basically never mess with it again. It was also my understanding
> That's where I don't follow in this patch.
> I don't see where the entire folio A is cleared if it's only partially mapped by
> kvm_gmem_populate(). kvm_gmem_get_pfn() won't clear folio A either due to
> kvm_gmem_populate() has set the uptodate flag.

Since kvm_gmem_populate() is specific to SNP and TDX VMs, I don't
think this behavior is concerning.