From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-f198.google.com (mail-pg1-f198.google.com [209.85.215.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6489B8E0001 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-f198.google.com with SMTP id 132-v6so5683644pga.18 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 07:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com. [192.55.52.115]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f1-v6si27230552pld.174.2018.09.21.07.09.38 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Sep 2018 07:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 06:47:39 +0800 From: Yi Zhang Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 4/4] kvm: add a check if pfn is from NVDIMM pmem. Message-ID: <20180921224739.GA33892@tiger-server> References: <4e8c2e0facd46cfaf4ab79e19c9115958ab6f218.1536342881.git.yi.z.zhang@linux.intel.com> <20180920224953.GA53363@tiger-server> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dan Williams Cc: David Hildenbrand , KVM list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-nvdimm , Paolo Bonzini , Dave Jiang , "Zhang, Yu C" , Pankaj Gupta , Jan Kara , Christoph Hellwig , Linux MM , rkrcmar@redhat.com, =?utf-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWU=?= Glisse , "Zhang, Yi Z" On 2018-09-20 at 14:19:17 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:11 AM Yi Zhang wrote: > > > > On 2018-09-19 at 09:20:25 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > Am 19.09.18 um 04:53 schrieb Dan Williams: > > > > > > > > Should we consider just not setting PageReserved for > > > > devm_memremap_pages()? Perhaps kvm is not be the only component making > > > > these assumptions about this flag? > > > > > > I was asking the exact same question in v3 or so. > > > > > > I was recently going through all PageReserved users, trying to clean up > > > and document how it is used. > > > > > > PG_reserved used to be a marker "not available for the page allocator". > > > This is only partially true and not really helpful I think. My current > > > understanding: > > > > > > " > > > PG_reserved is set for special pages, struct pages of such pages should > > > in general not be touched except by their owner. Pages marked as > > > reserved include: > > > - Kernel image (including vDSO) and similar (e.g. BIOS, initrd) > > > - Pages allocated early during boot (bootmem, memblock) > > > - Zero pages > > > - Pages that have been associated with a zone but were not onlined > > > (e.g. NVDIMM/pmem, online_page_callback used by XEN) > > > - Pages to exclude from the hibernation image (e.g. loaded kexec images) > > > - MCA (memory error) pages on ia64 > > > - Offline pages > > > Some architectures don't allow to ioremap RAM pages that are not marked > > > as reserved. Allocated pages might have to be set reserved to allow for > > > that - if there is a good reason to enforce this. Consequently, > > > PG_reserved part of a user space table might be the indicator for the > > > zero page, pmem or MMIO pages. > > > " > > > > > > Swapping code does not care about PageReserved at all as far as I > > > remember. This seems to be fine as it only looks at the way pages have > > > been mapped into user space. > > > > > > I don't really see a good reason to set pmem pages as reserved. One > > > question would be, how/if to exclude them from the hibernation image. > > > But that could also be solved differently (we would have to double check > > > how they are handled in hibernation code). > > > > > > > > > A similar user of PageReserved to look at is: > > > > > > drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c:is_invalid_reserved_pfn() > > > > > > It will not mark pages dirty if they are reserved. Similar to KVM code. > > Yes, kvm is not the only one user of the dax reserved page. > > > > > > > > > > > Why is MEMORY_DEVICE_PUBLIC memory specifically excluded? > > > > > > > > This has less to do with "dax" pages and more to do with > > > > devm_memremap_pages() established ranges. P2PDMA is another producer > > > > of these pages. If either MEMORY_DEVICE_PUBLIC or P2PDMA pages can be > > > > used in these kvm paths then I think this points to consider clearing > > > > the Reserved flag. > > > > Thanks Dan/David's comments. > > for MEMORY_DEVICE_PUBLIC memory, since host driver could manager the > > memory resource to share to guest, Jerome says we could ignore it at > > this time. > > > > And p2pmem, it seems mapped in a PCI bar space which should most likely > > a mmio. I think kvm should treated as a reserved page. > > Ok, but the question you left unanswered is whether it would be better > for devm_memremap_pages() to clear the PageReserved flag for > MEMORY_DEVICE_{FS,DEV}_DAX rather than introduce a local kvm-only hack > for what looks like a global problem. Remove the PageReserved flag sounds more reasonable. And Could we still have a flag to identify it is a device private memory, or where these pages coming from? > _______________________________________________ > Linux-nvdimm mailing list > Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm