Re: [RFC PATCH 08/21] KVM: TDX: Increase/decrease folio ref for huge pages

["Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>]

On Tue, 2025-06-17 at 01:09 -0700, Vishal Annapurve wrote:
> Sorry I quoted Ackerley's response wrongly. Here is the correct reference [1].

I'm confused...

> 
> Speculative/transient refcounts came up a few times In the context of
> guest_memfd discussions, some examples include: pagetable walkers,
> page migration, speculative pagecache lookups, GUP-fast etc. David H
> can provide more context here as needed.
> 
> Effectively some core-mm features that are present today or might land
> in the future can cause folio refcounts to be grabbed for short
> durations without actual access to underlying physical memory. These
> scenarios are unlikely to happen for private memory but can't be
> discounted completely.

This means the refcount could be increased for other reasons, and so guestmemfd
shouldn't rely on refcounts for it's purposes? So, it is not a problem for other
components handling the page elevate the refcount?

> 
> Another reason to avoid relying on refcounts is to not block usage of
> raw physical memory unmanaged by kernel (without page structs) to back
> guest private memory as we had discussed previously. This will help
> simplify merge/split operations during conversions and help usecases
> like guest memory persistence [2] and non-confidential VMs.

If this becomes a thing for private memory (which it isn't yet), then couldn't
we just change things at that point?

Is the only issue with TDX taking refcounts that it won't work with future code
changes?

> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/diqz7c2lr6wg.fsf@ackerleytng-ctop.c.googlers.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240805093245.889357-1-jgowans@amazon.com/