public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, Wincy Van <fanwenyi0529@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: Don't return error on nested bitmap memory allocation failure
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:39:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5541095C.8050305@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jpg383iyl0x.fsf@redhat.com>



On 29/04/2015 18:08, Bandan Das wrote:
>>>> >> > Yeah... I hear you. Ok, let me put it this way - Assume that we can
>>>> >> > defer this allocation up until the point that the nested subsystem is
>>>> >> > actually used i.e L1 tries running a guest and we try to allocate this
>>>> >> > area. If get_free_page() failed in that case, would we still want to
>>>> >> > kill L1 too ? I guess no.
>>> >>
>>> >> We could block the hypervisor thread on the allocation, just like it
>>> >> would block on faults for swapped out pages or new ones that have to be
>>> >> reclaimed from the page cache first.
> So, block on a failure hoping that eventually it will succeed ?
> 
>> > In that case we should avoid making the allocation GFP_ATOMIC to begin with.
>> >
>> > If a GFP_KERNEL allocation failed, returning -ENOMEM from KVM_RUN (which
>> > practically means killing the guest) would actually be a very real
>> > possibility.
> Sorry Paolo, I missed your point. Isn't the allocation already GFP_KERNEL ?

I mean if it were done lazily as in your thought-experiment.  Then:

- a GFP_ATOMIC allocation would be bad

- a GFP_KERNEL allocation would block like Jan said; if it failed, I
would be okay with returning -ENOMEM to userspace, even if that in
practice means killing the guest.

Paolo

  reply	other threads:[~2015-04-29 16:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-28 19:55 [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: Don't return error on nested bitmap memory allocation failure Bandan Das
2015-04-29  7:10 ` Jan Kiszka
2015-04-29 12:55   ` Bandan Das
2015-04-29 13:05     ` Jan Kiszka
2015-04-29 13:23       ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-04-29 16:08         ` Bandan Das
2015-04-29 16:39           ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2015-04-29  7:27 ` Nadav Amit
2015-04-29  8:17   ` Paolo Bonzini

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=5541095C.8050305@redhat.com \
    --to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsd@redhat.com \
    --cc=fanwenyi0529@gmail.com \
    --cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.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