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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D62C433E0 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 436CE206DC for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="Vubay+Cy" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 436CE206DC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=3Pf6198TBA0lB89ulHLpddsrrkeJfCtlTYkZjOt7/YM=; b=Vubay+CyQ2AVQK P02cWWmQ4o3INvLQZZhJ9zoe6/0ZrV1bzJhWY5wXpVYBJGcbJVZuBWjK+r0D4AFjvuBYy4aAAZrDD kuBepvDWJe6UwJ9sPUbzUQ+Br0xsXLF/UKFHou+l7Y7GShEEwcQ/C2ATeUPobd6dXb3nTJMS1uPf0 J/qFS55va8r1gzbOOf0XdNLnTo1F6kOP5+RWJxftu26RE/+IXnXDaKhVgqD1v4s75yOnxVWQgRmyq EQKvMciu25krJUkfIWWmhMFCX0hXyCNYGw7JFjWmjwgXTICTb0zHwL5zpLEGMYMNKy556jYyGR5yT rhWEVWmn0RKZ3a8SwTdA==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jjPN5-0005Al-MK; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:44:03 +0000 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jjPN2-0005A2-Pz for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:44:02 +0000 IronPort-SDR: 7OWX0ayg0dTRQzChIzGPqChHdL4bxoTUa2XibsJkHX36sdN+XYdXbJ3XhGyVrJAr67trWnDge1 H3lYYnPIu0fg== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Jun 2020 08:43:59 -0700 IronPort-SDR: +Ydw/4Fg05XSUVeVdaVnYwXl169Eie8ePVgfFpQAiQZ2NUmXKZaRvV2IeZsKgMR2pcPAaKpDpn +n8lSwG3SLOg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,499,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="419144435" Received: from sjchrist-coffee.jf.intel.com (HELO linux.intel.com) ([10.54.74.152]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Jun 2020 08:43:59 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:43:59 -0700 From: Sean Christopherson To: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/21] KVM: arm64: Use common code's approach for __GFP_ZERO with memory caches Message-ID: <20200611154359.GF29918@linux.intel.com> References: <20200605213853.14959-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <20200605213853.14959-18-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <6cc08074c289cbea7b9c1deeaf18c63f@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6cc08074c289cbea7b9c1deeaf18c63f@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200611_084400_888807_3BED611D X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.25 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Christoffer Dall , Wanpeng Li , kvm@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , Ben Gardon , Claudio Imbrenda , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Janosch Frank , Joerg Roedel , Christian Borntraeger , Julien Thierry , Junaid Shahid , Suzuki K Poulose , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Jim Mattson , Cornelia Huck , Peter Shier , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, James Morse , Paolo Bonzini , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Peter Feiner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 08:59:05AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c > >index 9398b66f8a87..688213ef34f0 100644 > >--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c > >+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c > >@@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ static int mmu_topup_memory_cache(struct > >kvm_mmu_memory_cache *cache, int min) > > if (cache->nobjs >= min) > > return 0; > > while (cache->nobjs < ARRAY_SIZE(cache->objects)) { > >- page = (void *)__get_free_page(GFP_PGTABLE_USER); > >+ page = (void *)__get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | > > This is definitely a change in the way we account for guest > page tables allocation, although I find it bizarre that not > all architectures account for it the same way. It's not intended to be a functional change, i.e. the allocations should still be accounted: #define GFP_PGTABLE_USER (GFP_PGTABLE_KERNEL | __GFP_ACCOUNT) | -> #define GFP_PGTABLE_KERNEL (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO) == GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO versus #define GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ACCOUNT) with __GFP_ZERO explicitly OR'd in == GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO I can put the above in the changelog, unless of course it's wrong and I've missed something. > It seems logical to me that nested page tables would be accounted > against userspace, but I'm willing to be educated on the matter. > > Another possibility is that depending on the context, some allocations > should be accounted on either the kernel or userspace (NV on arm64 > could definitely do something like that). If that was the case, > maybe moving most of the GFP_* flags into the per-cache flags, > and have the renaming that Ben suggested earlier. > > Thanks, > > M. > -- > Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel