From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, willy@infradead.org,
pbonzini@redhat.com
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, chao.gao@intel.com,
seanjc@google.com, ackerleytng@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
bharata@amd.com, nikunj@amd.com, michael.day@amd.com,
Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
michael.roth@amd.com, Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 3/3] KVM: guest_memfd: Enforce NUMA mempolicy using shared policy
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 11:39:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <824f7d52-3304-4028-b10a-e10566b3dfc0@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250210063227.41125-4-shivankg@amd.com>
On 10.02.25 07:32, Shivank Garg wrote:
> Previously, guest-memfd allocations were following local NUMA node id
> in absence of process mempolicy, resulting in random memory allocation.
> Moreover, mbind() couldn't be used since memory wasn't mapped to userspace
> in VMM.
>
> Enable NUMA policy support by implementing vm_ops for guest-memfd mmap
> operation. This allows VMM to map the memory and use mbind() to set the
> desired NUMA policy. The policy is then retrieved via
> mpol_shared_policy_lookup() and passed to filemap_grab_folio_mpol() to
> ensure that allocations follow the specified memory policy.
>
> This enables VMM to control guest memory NUMA placement by calling mbind()
> on the mapped memory regions, providing fine-grained control over guest
> memory allocation across NUMA nodes.
Yes, I think that is the right direction, especially with upcoming
in-place conversion of shared<->private in mind.
>
> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>
> ---
> virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
> index b2aa6bf24d3a..e1ea8cb292fa 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> #include <linux/backing-dev.h>
> #include <linux/falloc.h>
> #include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> +#include <linux/mempolicy.h>
> #include <linux/pagemap.h>
> #include <linux/anon_inodes.h>
>
> @@ -11,8 +12,13 @@ struct kvm_gmem {
> struct kvm *kvm;
> struct xarray bindings;
> struct list_head entry;
> + struct shared_policy policy;
> };
>
> +static struct mempolicy *kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy(struct kvm_gmem *gmem,
> + pgoff_t index,
> + pgoff_t *ilx);
> +
> /**
> * folio_file_pfn - like folio_file_page, but return a pfn.
> * @folio: The folio which contains this index.
> @@ -96,10 +102,20 @@ static int kvm_gmem_prepare_folio(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> * Ignore accessed, referenced, and dirty flags. The memory is
> * unevictable and there is no storage to write back to.
> */
> -static struct folio *kvm_gmem_get_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index)
> +static struct folio *kvm_gmem_get_folio(struct file *file, pgoff_t index)
I'd probably do that change in a separate prep-patch; would remove some
of the unrelated noise in this patch.
> {
> /* TODO: Support huge pages. */
> - return filemap_grab_folio(inode->i_mapping, index);
> + struct folio *folio = NULL;
No need to init folio.
> + struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
> + struct kvm_gmem *gmem = file->private_data;
Prefer reverse christmas-tree (longest line first) as possible.
> + struct mempolicy *policy;
> + pgoff_t ilx;
Why do you return the ilx from kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy() if it is
completely unused?
> +
> + policy = kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy(gmem, index, &ilx);
> + folio = filemap_grab_folio_mpol(inode->i_mapping, index, policy);
> + mpol_cond_put(policy);
The downside is that we always have to lookup the policy, even if we
don't have to allocate anything because the pagecache already contains a
folio.
Would there be a way to lookup if there is something already allcoated
(fast-path) and fallback to the slow-path (lookup policy+call
filemap_grab_folio_mpol) only if that failed?
Note that shmem.c does exactly that: shmem_alloc_folio() is only called
after filemap_get_entry() told us that there is nothing.
> +
> + return folio;
> }
>
[...]
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> +static int kvm_gmem_set_policy(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mempolicy *new)
> +{
> + struct file *file = vma->vm_file;
> + struct kvm_gmem *gmem = file->private_data;
> +
> + return mpol_set_shared_policy(&gmem->policy, vma, new);
> +}
> +
> +static struct mempolicy *kvm_gmem_get_policy(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> + unsigned long addr, pgoff_t *pgoff)
> +{
> + struct file *file = vma->vm_file;
> + struct kvm_gmem *gmem = file->private_data;
> +
> + *pgoff = vma->vm_pgoff + ((addr - vma->vm_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> + return mpol_shared_policy_lookup(&gmem->policy, *pgoff);
> +}
> +
> +static struct mempolicy *kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy(struct kvm_gmem *gmem,
> + pgoff_t index,
> + pgoff_t *ilx)
> +{
> + struct mempolicy *mpol;
> +
> + *ilx = NO_INTERLEAVE_INDEX;
> + mpol = mpol_shared_policy_lookup(&gmem->policy, index);
> + return mpol ? mpol : get_task_policy(current);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct vm_operations_struct kvm_gmem_vm_ops = {
> + .get_policy = kvm_gmem_get_policy,
> + .set_policy = kvm_gmem_set_policy,
> +};
> +
> +static int kvm_gmem_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +{
> + file_accessed(file);
> + vma->vm_ops = &kvm_gmem_vm_ops;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#else
> +static struct mempolicy *kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy(struct kvm_gmem *gmem,
> + pgoff_t index,
> + pgoff_t *ilx)
> +{
> + *ilx = 0;
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */
>
> static struct file_operations kvm_gmem_fops = {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> + .mmap = kvm_gmem_mmap,
> +#endif
With Fuad's work, this will be unconditional, and you'd only set the
kvm_gmem_vm_ops conditionally -- just like shmem.c. Maybe best to
prepare for that already: allow unconditional mmap (Fuad will implement
the faulting logic of shared pages, until then all accesses would SIGBUS
I assume, did you try that?) and only mess with get_policy/set_policy.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-12 10:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-10 6:32 [RFC PATCH v4 0/3] Add NUMA mempolicy support for KVM guest-memfd Shivank Garg
2025-02-10 6:32 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/3] mm/filemap: add mempolicy support to the filemap layer Shivank Garg
2025-02-12 10:03 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-02-13 18:27 ` Shivank Garg
2025-02-17 19:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-02-10 6:32 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/3] mm/mempolicy: export memory policy symbols Shivank Garg
2025-02-12 10:23 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-02-13 18:27 ` Shivank Garg
2025-02-17 11:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-02-18 15:22 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-02-19 6:45 ` Shivank Garg
2025-02-10 6:32 ` [RFC PATCH v4 3/3] KVM: guest_memfd: Enforce NUMA mempolicy using shared policy Shivank Garg
2025-02-12 10:39 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2025-02-13 18:27 ` Shivank Garg
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=824f7d52-3304-4028-b10a-e10566b3dfc0@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com \
--cc=ackerleytng@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bharata@amd.com \
--cc=chao.gao@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=michael.day@amd.com \
--cc=michael.roth@amd.com \
--cc=nikunj@amd.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=shivankg@amd.com \
--cc=tabba@google.com \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.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