On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:41 AM Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Vishal Annapurve wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:15 AM Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 09:10:42AM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 08:46:59AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > > > folio = __kvm_gmem_get_pfn(file, slot, index, &pfn, &is_prepared, &max_order); > > > > > > If max_order > 0 is returned, the next invocation of __kvm_gmem_populate() for > > > > > > GFN+1 will return is_prepared == true. > > > > > > > > > > I don't see any reason to try and make the current code truly work with hugepages. > > > > > Unless I've misundertood where we stand, the correctness of hugepage support is > > > > Hmm. I thought your stand was to address the AB-BA lock issue which will be > > > > introduced by huge pages, so you moved the get_user_pages() from vendor code to > > > > the common code in guest_memfd :) > > > > > > > > > going to depend heavily on the implementation for preparedness. I.e. trying to > > > > > make this all work with per-folio granulartiy just isn't possible, no? > > > > Ah. I understand now. You mean the right implementation of __kvm_gmem_get_pfn() > > > > should return is_prepared at 4KB granularity rather than per-folio granularity. > > > > > > > > So, huge pages still has dependency on the implementation for preparedness. > > > Looks with [3], is_prepared will not be checked in kvm_gmem_populate(). > > > > > > > Will you post code [1][2] to fix non-hugepages first? Or can I pull them to use > > > > as prerequisites for TDX huge page v2? > > > So, maybe I can use [1][2][3] as the base. > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aG_pLUlHdYIZ2luh@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aHEwT4X0RcfZzHlt@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > IMO, unless there is any objection to [1], it's un-necessary to > > maintain kvm_gmem_populate for any arch (even for SNP). All the > > initial memory population logic needs is the stable pfn for a given > > gfn, which ideally should be available using the standard mechanisms > > such as EPT/NPT page table walk within a read KVM mmu lock (This patch > > already demonstrates it to be working). > > > > It will be hard to clean-up this logic once we have all the > > architectures using this path. > > Did you mean to say 'not hard'? Let me rephrase my sentence: It will be harder to remove kvm_gmem_populate if we punt it to the future.
