linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@google.com>
To: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, willy@infradead.org,
	pbonzini@redhat.com,  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, david@redhat.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, shivankg@amd.com,
	 tabba@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] KVM: guest_memfd: Enforce NUMA mempolicy using shared policy
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 17:25:36 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <diqzbjumm167.fsf@ackerleytng-ctop.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250226082549.6034-5-shivankg@amd.com> (message from Shivank Garg on Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:25:48 +0000)

Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com> writes:

> Previously, guest-memfd allocations followed local NUMA node id in absence
> of process mempolicy, resulting in arbitrary memory allocation.
> Moreover, mbind() couldn't be used since memory wasn't mapped to userspace
> in the VMM.
>
> Enable NUMA policy support by implementing vm_ops for guest-memfd mmap
> operation. This allows the 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 the 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.
>
> The policy change only affect future allocations and does not migrate
> existing memory. This matches mbind(2)'s default behavior which affects
> only new allocations unless overridden with MPOL_MF_MOVE/MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL
> flags, which are not supported for guest_memfd as it is unmovable.
>
> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>
> ---
>  virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
> index f18176976ae3..b3a8819117a0 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 +12,12 @@ struct kvm_gmem {
>  	struct kvm *kvm;
>  	struct xarray bindings;
>  	struct list_head entry;
> +	struct shared_policy policy;
>  };
>

struct shared_policy should be stored on the inode rather than the file,
since the memory policy is a property of the memory (struct inode),
rather than a property of how the memory is used for a given VM (struct
file).

When the shared_policy is stored on the inode, intra-host migration [1]
will work correctly, since the while the inode will be transferred from
one VM (struct kvm) to another, the file (a VM's view/bindings of the
memory) will be recreated for the new VM.

I'm thinking of having a patch like this [2] to introduce inodes.

With this, we shouldn't need to pass file pointers instead of inode
pointers.

> +static struct mempolicy *kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy(struct kvm_gmem *gmem,
> +						   pgoff_t index);
> +
>  /**
>   * folio_file_pfn - like folio_file_page, but return a pfn.
>   * @folio: The folio which contains this index.
> @@ -99,7 +104,25 @@ static int kvm_gmem_prepare_folio(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
>  static struct folio *kvm_gmem_get_folio(struct file *file, pgoff_t index)
>  {
>  	/* TODO: Support huge pages. */
> -	return filemap_grab_folio(file_inode(file)->i_mapping, index);
> +	struct kvm_gmem *gmem = file->private_data;
> +	struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
> +	struct mempolicy *policy;
> +	struct folio *folio;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Fast-path: See if folio is already present in mapping to avoid
> +	 * policy_lookup.
> +	 */
> +	folio = __filemap_get_folio(inode->i_mapping, index,
> +				    FGP_LOCK | FGP_ACCESSED, 0);
> +	if (!IS_ERR(folio))
> +		return folio;
> +
> +	policy = kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy(gmem, index);
> +	folio = filemap_grab_folio_mpol(inode->i_mapping, index, policy);
> +	mpol_cond_put(policy);
> +
> +	return folio;
>  }
>
>  static void kvm_gmem_invalidate_begin(struct kvm_gmem *gmem, pgoff_t start,
> @@ -291,6 +314,7 @@ static int kvm_gmem_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  	mutex_unlock(&kvm->slots_lock);
>
>  	xa_destroy(&gmem->bindings);
> +	mpol_free_shared_policy(&gmem->policy);
>  	kfree(gmem);
>
>  	kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
> @@ -312,8 +336,57 @@ static pgoff_t kvm_gmem_get_index(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot, gfn_t gfn)
>  {
>  	return gfn - slot->base_gfn + slot->gmem.pgoff;
>  }
> +#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)
> +{
> +	struct mempolicy *mpol;
> +
> +	mpol = mpol_shared_policy_lookup(&gmem->policy, index);
> +	return mpol ? mpol : get_task_policy(current);
> +}
> +#else
> +static struct mempolicy *kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy(struct kvm_gmem *gmem,
> +						   pgoff_t index)
> +{
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */
> +
> +static const struct vm_operations_struct kvm_gmem_vm_ops = {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> +	.get_policy	= kvm_gmem_get_policy,
> +	.set_policy	= kvm_gmem_set_policy,
> +#endif
> +};
> +
> +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;
> +}
>
>  static struct file_operations kvm_gmem_fops = {
> +	.mmap		= kvm_gmem_mmap,
>  	.open		= generic_file_open,
>  	.release	= kvm_gmem_release,
>  	.fallocate	= kvm_gmem_fallocate,
> @@ -446,6 +519,7 @@ static int __kvm_gmem_create(struct kvm *kvm, loff_t size, u64 flags)
>  	kvm_get_kvm(kvm);
>  	gmem->kvm = kvm;
>  	xa_init(&gmem->bindings);
> +	mpol_shared_policy_init(&gmem->policy, NULL);
>  	list_add(&gmem->entry, &inode->i_mapping->i_private_list);
>
>  	fd_install(fd, file);

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1691446946.git.ackerleytng@google.com/T/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/d1940d466fc69472c8b6dda95df2e0522b2d8744.1726009989.git.ackerleytng@google.com/


  reply	other threads:[~2025-02-28 17:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-02-26  8:25 [PATCH v6 0/5] Add NUMA mempolicy support for KVM guest-memfd Shivank Garg
2025-02-26  8:25 ` [PATCH v6 1/5] mm/filemap: add mempolicy support to the filemap layer Shivank Garg
2025-02-28 14:17   ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-02-28 17:51     ` Ackerley Tng
2025-02-26  8:25 ` [PATCH v6 2/5] mm/mempolicy: export memory policy symbols Shivank Garg
2025-02-26 13:59   ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-02-26  8:25 ` [PATCH v6 3/5] KVM: guest_memfd: Pass file pointer instead of inode pointer Shivank Garg
2025-02-26  8:25 ` [PATCH v6 4/5] KVM: guest_memfd: Enforce NUMA mempolicy using shared policy Shivank Garg
2025-02-28 17:25   ` Ackerley Tng [this message]
2025-03-03  8:58     ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-03-04  0:19       ` Ackerley Tng
2025-03-04 15:30         ` Sean Christopherson
2025-03-04 15:51           ` David Hildenbrand
2025-03-04 16:59             ` Sean Christopherson
2025-02-26  8:25 ` [PATCH v6 5/5] KVM: guest_memfd: selftests: add tests for mmap and NUMA policy support Shivank Garg
2025-03-09  1:09 ` [PATCH v6 0/5] Add NUMA mempolicy support for KVM guest-memfd Vishal Annapurve
2025-03-09 18:52   ` Vishal Annapurve

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=diqzbjumm167.fsf@ackerleytng-ctop.c.googlers.com \
    --to=ackerleytng@google.com \
    --cc=Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bharata@amd.com \
    --cc=chao.gao@intel.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.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