From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
rppt@kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
ardb@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, brijesh.singh@amd.com,
dave.hansen@intel.com, dfaggioli@suse.com, jroedel@suse.de,
linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
luto@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
peterz@infradead.org, rientjes@google.com,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, seanjc@google.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
varad.gautam@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, x86@kernel.org,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3.1 1/7] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:30:41 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220131193041.xuagyispia77ak2g@box.shutemov.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <acc12d73-a7d1-014c-9c07-33251d7d07ee@redhat.com>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 01:13:49PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30.01.22 17:45, 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, requiring memory to be accepted before it can be used by the
> > guest. Accepting happens via a protocol specific for the Virtual Machine
> > platform.
> >
> > Accepting memory is costly and it makes VMM allocate memory for the
> > accepted guest physical address range. It's better to postpone memory
> > acceptance until memory is needed. It lowers boot time and reduces
> > memory overhead.
> >
> > Support of such 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.
> > PageBuddyUnaccepted() is used to indicate that the page requires acceptance.
> >
> > Kernel only need to accept memory once after boot, so during the boot
> > and warm up phase there will be a lot of memory acceptance. After things
> > are settled down the only price of the feature if couple of checks for
> > PageBuddyUnaccepted() in alloc and free paths. The check refers a hot
> > variable (that also encodes PageBuddy()), so it is cheap and not visible
> > on profiles.
> >
> > Architecture has to provide three helpers if it wants to support
> > unaccepted memory:
> >
> > - accept_memory() makes a range of physical addresses accepted.
> >
> > - maybe_mark_page_unaccepted() marks a page PageBuddyUnaccepted() if it
> > requires acceptance. Used during boot to put pages on free lists.
> >
> > - accept_page() makes a page accepted and clears PageBuddyUnaccepted().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > Acked-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> # memblock
>
>
> You should somehow document+check+enforce that page poisoning cannot be
> enabled concurrently, because it cannot possibly work IIUC.
Looking at code again, I now think that sharing the bit with PageOffline()
is wrong. Previously I convinced myself that there's no conflict on the
bit. In the initial version of the patchset, the page acceptance happened
inside del_page_from_free_list() so any removal from the free list lead to
clearing the bit. It is not the case now when acceptance moved to
post_alloc_hook(). __isolate_free_page() and __offline_isolated_pages()
look problematic now.
I will use brand new bit for the flag and rename BuddyUnaccepted to just
Unaccepted, since it can be set with Buddy cleared.
Sounds okay?
> [...]
>
> > + /*
> > + * PageBuddyUnaccepted() indicates that the page has to be "accepted" before
> > + * it can be used. Page allocator has to call accept_page() before returning
> > + * the page to the caller.
> > + *
> > + * PageBuddyUnaccepted() encoded with the same bit as PageOffline().
> > + * PageOffline() pages are never on free list of buddy allocator, so there's
> > + * not conflict.
> > + */
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY
> > +PAGE_TYPE_OPS(BuddyUnaccepted, offline)
> > +#else
> > +PAGE_TYPE_OPS_FALSE(BuddyUnaccepted)
> > +#endif
>
> Much better.
>
> > +
> > extern void page_offline_freeze(void);
> > extern void page_offline_thaw(void);
> > extern void page_offline_begin(void);
> > diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> > index d80300392a19..26e5d7cb6aff 100644
> > --- a/mm/internal.h
> > +++ b/mm/internal.h
> > @@ -718,4 +718,19 @@ void vunmap_range_noflush(unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
> > int numa_migrate_prep(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > unsigned long addr, int page_nid, int *flags);
> >
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY
> > +static inline void maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(struct page *page,
> > + unsigned int order)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void accept_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> > #endif /* __MM_INTERNAL_H */
> > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > index 1018e50566f3..6c109b3b2a02 100644
> > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > @@ -1400,6 +1400,15 @@ phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
> > */
> > kmemleak_alloc_phys(found, size, 0, 0);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * 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.
> > + *
> > + * Accept the memory of the allocated buffer.
> > + */
> > + accept_memory(found, found + size);
> > +
> > return found;
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 3589febc6d31..27b9bd20e675 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1077,6 +1077,7 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
> > unsigned int max_order;
> > struct page *buddy;
> > bool to_tail;
> > + bool unaccepted = PageBuddyUnaccepted(page);
> >
> > max_order = min_t(unsigned int, MAX_ORDER - 1, pageblock_order);
> >
> > @@ -1110,6 +1111,10 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
> > clear_page_guard(zone, buddy, order, migratetype);
> > else
> > del_page_from_free_list(buddy, zone, order);
> > +
> > + if (PageBuddyUnaccepted(buddy))
> > + unaccepted = true;
> > +
> > combined_pfn = buddy_pfn & pfn;
> > page = page + (combined_pfn - pfn);
> > pfn = combined_pfn;
> > @@ -1143,6 +1148,10 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
> > done_merging:
> > set_buddy_order(page, order);
> >
> > + /* Mark page unaccepted if any of merged pages were unaccepted */
> > + if (unaccepted)
> > + __SetPageBuddyUnaccepted(page);
> > +
> > if (fpi_flags & FPI_TO_TAIL)
> > to_tail = true;
> > else if (is_shuffle_order(order))
> > @@ -1168,7 +1177,8 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
> > static inline bool page_expected_state(struct page *page,
> > unsigned long check_flags)
> > {
> > - if (unlikely(atomic_read(&page->_mapcount) != -1))
> > + if (unlikely(atomic_read(&page->_mapcount) != -1) &&
> > + !PageBuddyUnaccepted(page))
> > return false;
> >
> > if (unlikely((unsigned long)page->mapping |
> > @@ -1749,6 +1759,8 @@ void __init memblock_free_pages(struct page *page, unsigned long pfn,
> > {
> > if (early_page_uninitialised(pfn))
> > return;
> > +
> > + maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(page, order);
> > __free_pages_core(page, order);
>
> You'll be setting the page as unaccepted even before it's actually
> PageBuddy(). While that works, I wonder why we call
> maybe_mark_page_unaccepted() at these points.
>
> Why are we not moving that deeper into the buddy? __free_pages_core() is
> used for any fresh pages that enter the buddy, used outside of
> page_alloc.c only for memory hot(un)plug, so I'd suggest moving it at
> least into there.
>
> But maybe we'd even move it further down, to the place where we actually
> establish PageBuddy().
>
> One idea would be adding a new FPI_UNACCEPTED flag, passing it from
> __free_pages_core() only, and calling maybe_mark_page_unaccepted() from
> __free_one_page() after set_buddy_order().
>
> If in-lining would do its job properly, we'd be left with the
> FPI_UNACCEPTED checks only when called via __free_pages_core(), and we'd
> have that call at a single place right where we mess with PageBuddy().
Okay, this approach looks neat. See fixup below.
But there's down side: maybe_mark_page_unaccepted() cannot be __init
anymore, since it is called from __free_one_page().
Any comments?
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c b/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c
index 2c4ef49a0c9b..a9ce5b918d44 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/unaccepted_memory.c
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ void accept_memory(phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&unaccepted_memory_lock, flags);
}
-void __init maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
+void maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
{
unsigned long *unaccepted_memory;
phys_addr_t addr = page_to_phys(page);
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 27b9bd20e675..389a9b5e6d63 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -121,6 +121,12 @@ typedef int __bitwise fpi_t;
*/
#define FPI_SKIP_KASAN_POISON ((__force fpi_t)BIT(2))
+/*
+ * Check if the page needs to be marked as PageBuddyUnaccepted().
+ * Used for the new pages added to the buddy allocator for the first time.
+ */
+#define FPI_UNACCEPTED ((__force fpi_t)BIT(3))
+
/* prevent >1 _updater_ of zone percpu pageset ->high and ->batch fields */
static DEFINE_MUTEX(pcp_batch_high_lock);
#define MIN_PERCPU_PAGELIST_HIGH_FRACTION (8)
@@ -1148,9 +1154,17 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
done_merging:
set_buddy_order(page, order);
- /* Mark page unaccepted if any of merged pages were unaccepted */
- if (unaccepted)
+ if (unaccepted) {
+ /* Mark page unaccepted if any of merged pages were unaccepted */
__SetPageBuddyUnaccepted(page);
+ } else if (fpi_flags & FPI_UNACCEPTED) {
+ /*
+ * Check if the page needs to be marked as PageBuddyUnaccepted().
+ * Used for the new pages added to the buddy allocator for the
+ * first time.
+ */
+ maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(page, order);
+ }
if (fpi_flags & FPI_TO_TAIL)
to_tail = true;
@@ -1699,7 +1713,8 @@ void __free_pages_core(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
* Bypass PCP and place fresh pages right to the tail, primarily
* relevant for memory onlining.
*/
- __free_pages_ok(page, order, FPI_TO_TAIL | FPI_SKIP_KASAN_POISON);
+ __free_pages_ok(page, order,
+ FPI_TO_TAIL | FPI_SKIP_KASAN_POISON | FPI_UNACCEPTED);
}
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
@@ -1760,7 +1775,6 @@ void __init memblock_free_pages(struct page *page, unsigned long pfn,
if (early_page_uninitialised(pfn))
return;
- maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(page, order);
__free_pages_core(page, order);
}
@@ -1850,7 +1864,6 @@ static void __init deferred_free_range(unsigned long pfn,
if (nr_pages == pageblock_nr_pages &&
(pfn & (pageblock_nr_pages - 1)) == 0) {
set_pageblock_migratetype(page, MIGRATE_MOVABLE);
- maybe_mark_page_unaccepted(page, pageblock_order);
__free_pages_core(page, pageblock_order);
return;
}
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-31 19:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-28 20:58 [PATCHv3 0/7] Implement support for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 1/7] mm: Add " Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-30 8:16 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-01-30 16:45 ` [PATCHv3.1 " Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-31 12:13 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-01-31 16:28 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-01-31 19:30 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2022-02-01 10:57 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-02-01 11:13 ` David Hildenbrand
2022-01-30 16:48 ` [PATCHv3.1 5/7] x86/mm: Reserve unaccepted memory bitmap Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 2/7] efi/x86: Get full memory map in allocate_e820() Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-31 22:38 ` Dave Hansen
2022-01-31 23:44 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 3/7] efi/x86: Implement support for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 4/7] x86/boot/compressed: Handle " Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 5/7] x86/mm: Reserve unaccepted memory bitmap Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-30 8:39 ` Mike Rapoport
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 6/7] x86/mm: Provide helpers for unaccepted memory Kirill A. Shutemov
2022-01-28 20:59 ` [PATCHv3 7/7] x86/tdx: Unaccepted memory support Kirill A. Shutemov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220131193041.xuagyispia77ak2g@box.shutemov.name \
--to=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dfaggioli@suse.com \
--cc=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=varad.gautam@suse.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).