On Sun, Dec 08, 2024, Nikolay Kuratov wrote:
> Since 5.16 and prior to 6.13 KVM can't be used with FSDAX
> guest memory (PMD pages). To reproduce the issue you need to reserve
> guest memory with `memmap=` cmdline, create and mount FS in DAX mode
> (tested both XFS and ext4), see doc link below. ndctl command for test:
> ndctl create-namespace -v -e namespace1.0 --map=dev --mode=fsdax -a 2M
> Then pass memory object to qemu like:
> -m 8G -object memory-backend-file,id=ram0,size=8G,\
> mem-path=/mnt/pmem/guestmem,share=on,prealloc=on,dump=off,align=2097152 \
> -numa node,memdev=ram0,cpus=0-1
> QEMU fails to run guest with error: kvm run failed Bad address
> and there are two warnings in dmesg:
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!page_count(page)) in kvm_is_zone_device_page() and
> WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_ref_count(folio) <= 0) in try_grab_folio() (v6.6.63)
>
> It looks like in the past assumption was made that pfn won't change from
> faultin_pfn() to release_pfn_clean(), e.g. see
> commit 4cd071d13c5c ("KVM: x86/mmu: Move calls to thp_adjust() down a level")
> But kvm_page_fault structure made pfn part of mutable state, so
> now release_pfn_clean() can take hugepage-adjusted pfn.
> And it works for all cases (/dev/shm, hugetlb, devdax) except fsdax.
> Apparently in fsdax mode faultin-pfn and adjusted-pfn may refer to
> different folios, so we're getting get_page/put_page imbalance.
>
> To solve this preserve faultin pfn in separate local variable
> and pass it in kvm_release_pfn_clean().
>
> Patch tested for all mentioned guest memory backends with tdp_mmu={0,1}.
>
> No bug in upstream as it was solved fundamentally by
> commit 8dd861cc07e2 ("KVM: x86/mmu: Put refcounted pages instead of blindly releasing pfns")
> and related patch series.
>
> Link: https://nvdimm.docs.kernel.org/2mib_fs_dax.html
> Fixes: 2f6305dd5676 ("KVM: MMU: change kvm_tdp_mmu_map() arguments to kvm_page_fault")
> Co-developed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
First off, thank you very much for the fixes+backports, and testing!
However, in the future, please don't record a Reviewed-by or Acked-tag unless it
is explicitly given, especially for backports to LTS kernels. I know it's weird
and pedantic in this case since I provided the code, but it's still important to
give maintainers the opportunity to review exactly what will be applied.
Anyways, all the patches look good and Greg has grabbed them, so there's nothing
more to be done.
Thanks again!
