Re: [RFC PATCH 08/21] KVM: TDX: Increase/decrease folio ref for huge pages

["Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>]

On Mon, 2025-06-23 at 17:27 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> To use page_ext, should we introduce a new flag PAGE_EXT_FIRMWARE_IN_USE,
> similar to PAGE_EXT_YOUNG?
> 
> Due to similar issues as those with normal page/folio flags (see the next
> comment for details), TDX needs to set PAGE_EXT_FIRMWARE_IN_USE on a
> page-by-page basis rather than folio-by-folio.
> 
> Additionally, it seems reasonable for guest_memfd not to copy the
> PAGE_EXT_FIRMWARE_IN_USE flag when splitting a huge folio?
> (in __folio_split() --> split_folio_to_order(), PAGE_EXT_YOUNG and
> PAGE_EXT_IDLE are copied to the new folios though).
> 
> Furthermore, page_ext uses extra memory. With CONFIG_64BIT, should we instead
> introduce a PG_firmware_in_use in page flags, similar to PG_young and PG_idle?

Page flags are a scarce resource. If we could have used an existing one, it
would have been nice. But otherwise, I would guess the use case is not strong
enough to justify adding one.

So PAGE_EXT_FIRMWARE_IN_USE is probably a better way to go. Due to the memory
use, it would have to be a debug config like the others. If we have line of
sight to a solution, how do you feel about the following direction to move past
this issue:
1. Go with refcount on error approach for now (i.e. tdx_hold_page_on_error())
2. In a pfn-only future, plan to switch to guestmemfd callback instead of
tdx_hold_page_on_error(). We don't understand the pfn-only feature enough to
properly design for it anyway.
3. Plan for a PAGE_EXT_FIRMWARE_IN_USE as follow on work to huge pages. The
reason why it should not be required before huge pages is because it is not
necessary for correct code, only to catch incorrect code slipping in.

That is based on the assessment that the effort to change the zap path to
communicate failure is too much churn. Do you happen to have a diffstat for a
POC on this BTW?

> 
> > by the TDX module. There was also some discussion of using a normal page flag,
> > and that the reserved page flag might prevent some of the MM operations that
> > would be needed on guestmemfd pages. I didn't see the problem when I looked.
> > 
> > For the solution, basically the SEAMCALL wrappers set a flag when they hand a
> > page to the TDX module, and clear it when they successfully reclaim it via
> > tdh_mem_page_remove() or tdh_phymem_page_reclaim(). Then if the page makes it
> > back to the page allocator, a warning is generated.
> After some testing, to use a normal page flag, we may need to set it on a
> page-by-page basis rather than folio-by-folio. See "Scheme 1".
> And guest_memfd may need to selectively copy page flags when splitting huge
> folios. See "Scheme 2".

With page_ext, it seems we could have it be per page from the beginning?