On Mon, 2025-05-19 at 14:39 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > It sounds like Kirill is suggesting we do have to have demotion in the fault
> > path. IIRC it adds a lock, but the cost to skip fault path demotion seems to
> > be
> > adding up.
> Yes, though Kirill is suggesting to support demotion in the fault path, I
> still
> think that using tdx_gmem_private_max_mapping_level() might be more friendly
> to
> other potential scenarios, such as when the KVM core MMU requests TDX to
> perform
> page promotion, and TDX finds that promotion would consistently fail on a GFN.
>
> Another important reason for not passing a max_fault_level into the fault
> struct
> is that the KVM MMU now has the hook private_max_mapping_level to determine a
> private fault's maximum level, which was introduced by commit f32fb32820b1
> ("KVM: x86: Add hook for determining max NPT mapping level"). We'd better not
> to
> introduce another mechanism if the same job can be accomplished via the
> private_max_mapping_level hook.
How about the alternative discussed on the thread with Kai? I don't think Kirill
was suggesting #VE based TDs need huge pages, just that they need to work with
4k accepts. Let's continue the discussion on that thread, because I think they
are all related. Once we conclude there we can iron out any remaining issues on
this specific patch.
>
> The code in TDX huge page v8 [1][2] simply inherited the old implementation
> from
> its v1 [3], where the private_max_mapping_level hook had not yet been
> introduced
> for private faults.
