Re: [PATCH v7 06/12] KVM: guest_memfd: add module param for disabling TLB flushing

[Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@google.com>]

Patrick Roy <patrick.roy@linux.dev> writes:

> Hey all,
>
> sorry it took me a while to get back to this, turns out moving
> internationally is move time consuming than I expected.
>
> On Mon, 2025-09-29 at 12:20 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 27.09.25 09:38, Patrick Roy wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2025-09-26 at 21:09 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 26.09.25 12:53, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 10:46:15AM +0100, Patrick Roy wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2025-09-25 at 21:13 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25.09.25 21:59, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/25/25 12:20, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 25.09.25 20:27, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/25 08:22, Roy, Patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Add an option to not perform TLB flushes after direct map manipulations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd really prefer this be left out for now. It's a massive can of worms.
>>>>>>>>>> Let's agree on something that works and has well-defined behavior before
>>>>>>>>>> we go breaking it on purpose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> May I ask what the big concern here is?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not a _big_ concern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, I read "can of worms" and thought there is something seriously problematic :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just think we want to start on something
>>>>>>>> like this as simple, secure, and deterministic as possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I agree. And it should be the default. Less secure would have to be opt-in and documented thoroughly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I am definitely happy to have the 100% secure behavior be the
>>>>>> default, and the skipping of TLB flushes be an opt-in, with thorough
>>>>>> documentation!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I would like to include the "skip tlb flushes" option as part of
>>>>>> this patch series straight away, because as I was alluding to in the
>>>>>> commit message, with TLB flushes this is not usable for Firecracker for
>>>>>> performance reasons :(
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't want that option for arm64. If we're going to bother
>>>>> unmapping from the linear map, we should invalidate the TLB.
>>>>
>>>> Reading "TLB flushes result in a up to 40x elongation of page faults in
>>>> guest_memfd (scaling with the number of CPU cores), or a 5x elongation
>>>> of memory population,", I can understand why one would want that optimization :)
>>>>
>>>> @Patrick, couldn't we use fallocate() to preallocate memory and batch the TLB flush within such an operation?
>>>>
>>>> That is, we wouldn't flush after each individual direct-map modification but after multiple ones part of a single operation like fallocate of a larger range.
>>>>
>>>> Likely wouldn't make all use cases happy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For Firecracker, we rely a lot on not preallocating _all_ VM memory, and
>>> trying to ensure only the actual "working set" of a VM is faulted in (we
>>> pack a lot more VMs onto a physical host than there is actual physical
>>> memory available). For VMs that are restored from a snapshot, we know
>>> pretty well what memory needs to be faulted in (that's where @Nikita's
>>> write syscall comes in), so there we could try such an optimization. But
>>> for everything else we very much rely on the on-demand nature of guest
>>> memory allocation (and hence direct map removal). And even right now,
>>> the long pole performance-wise are these on-demand faults, so really, we
>>> don't want them to become even slower :(
>> 
>> Makes sense. I guess even without support for large folios one could implement a kind of "fault" around: for example, on access to one addr, allocate+prepare all pages in the same 2 M chunk, flushing the tlb only once after adjusting all the direct map entries.
>> 
>>>
>>> Also, can we really batch multiple TLB flushes as you suggest? Even if
>>> pages are at consecutive indices in guest_memfd, they're not guaranteed
>>> to be continguous physically, e.g. we couldn't just coalesce multiple
>>> TLB flushes into a single TLB flush of a larger range.
>> 
>> Well, you there is the option on just flushing the complete tlb of course :) When trying to flush a range you would indeed run into the problem of flushing an ever growing range.
>
> In the last guest_memfd upstream call (over a week ago now), we've
> discussed the option of batching and deferring TLB flushes, while
> providing a sort of "deadline" at which a TLB flush will
> deterministically be done.  E.g. guest_memfd would keep a counter of how
> many pages got direct map zapped, and do a flush of a range that
> contains all zapped pages every 512 allocated pages (and to ensure the
> flushes even happen in a timely manner if no allocations happen for a
> long time, also every, say, 5 seconds or something like that). Would
> that work for everyone? I briefly tested the performance of
> batch-flushes with secretmem in QEMU, and its within of 30% of the "no
> TLB flushes at all" solution in a simple benchmark that just memsets
> 2GiB of memory.
>
> I think something like this, together with the batch-flushing at the end
> of fallocate() / write() as David suggested above should work for
> Firecracker.
>
>>> There's probably other things we can try. Backing guest_memfd with
>>> hugepages would reduce the number TLB flushes by 512x (although not all
>>> users of Firecracker at Amazon [can] use hugepages).
>> 
>> Right.
>> 
>>>
>>> And I do still wonder if it's possible to have "async TLB flushes" where
>>> we simply don't wait for the IPI (x86 terminology, not sure what the
>>> mechanism on arm64 is). Looking at
>>> smp_call_function_many_cond()/invlpgb_kernel_range_flush() on x86, it
>>> seems so? Although seems like on ARM it's actually just handled by a
>>> single instruction (TLBI) and not some interprocess communication
>>> thingy. Maybe there's a variant that's faster / better for this usecase?
>> 
>> Right, some architectures (and IIRC also x86 with some extension) are able to flush remote TLBs without IPIs.
>> 
>> Doing a quick search, there seems to be some research on async TLB flushing, e.g., [1].
>> 
>> In the context here, I wonder whether an async TLB flush would be
>> significantly better than not doing an explicit TLB flush: in both
>> cases, it's not really deterministic when the relevant TLB entries
>> will vanish: with the async variant it might happen faster on average
>> I guess.
>
> I actually did end up playing around with this a while ago, and it made
> things slightly better performance wise, but it was still too bad to be
> useful :(
>

Does it help if we add a guest_memfd ioctl that allows userspace to zap
from the direct map to batch TLB flushes?

Could usage be something like:

0. Create guest_memfd with GUEST_MEMFD_FLAG_NO_DIRECT_MAP.
1. write() entire VM memory to guest_memfd.
2. ioctl(guest_memfd, KVM_GUEST_MEMFD_ZAP_DIRECT_MAP, { offset, len })
3. vcpu_run()

This way, we could flush the tlb once for the entire range of { offset,
len } instead of zapping once per fault.

For not-yet-allocated folios, those will get zapped once per fault
though.

Maybe this won't help much if the intention is to allow on-demand
loading of memory, since the demands will come to guest_memfd on a
per-folio basis.

>> 
>> [1] https://cs.yale.edu/homes/abhishek/kumar-taco20.pdf
>>
>
> Best, 
> Patrick