Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add fbind() and NUMA mempolicy support for KVM guest_memfd

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/7/24 16:10, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 02:24:20PM +0530, Shivank Garg wrote:
The folio allocation path from guest_memfd typically looks like this...

kvm_gmem_get_folio
   filemap_grab_folio
     __filemap_get_folio
       filemap_alloc_folio
         __folio_alloc_node_noprof
           -> goes to the buddy allocator

Hence, I am trying to have a version of filemap_alloc_folio() that takes an mpol.

It only takes that path if cpuset_do_page_mem_spread() is true.  Is the
real problem that you're trying to solve that cpusets are being used
incorrectly?

If it's false it's not very different, it goes to alloc_pages_noprof(). Then it respects the process's policy, but the policy is not customizable without mucking with state that is global to the process.

Taking a step back: the problem is that a VM can be configured to have multiple guest-side NUMA nodes, each of which will pick memory from the right NUMA node in the host. Without a per-file operation it's not possible to do this on guest_memfd. The discussion was whether to use ioctl() or a new system call. The discussion ended with the idea of posting a *proposal* asking for *comments* as to whether the system call would be useful in general beyond KVM.

Commenting on the system call itself I am not sure I like the file_operations entry, though I understand that it's the simplest way to implement this in an RFC series. It's a bit surprising that fbind() is a total no-op for everything except KVM's guest_memfd.

Maybe whatever you pass to fbind() could be stored in the struct file *, and used as the default when creating VMAs; as if every mmap() was followed by an mbind(), except that it also does the right thing with MAP_POPULATE for example. Or maybe that's a horrible idea?

Adding linux-api to get input; original thread is at
https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20241105164549.154700-1-shivankg@xxxxxxx/.

Paolo

Backing up, it seems like you want to make a change to the page cache,
you've had a long discussion with people who aren't the page cache
maintainer, and you all understand the pros and cons of everything,
and here you are dumping a solution on me without talking to me, even
though I was at Plumbers, you didn't find me to tell me I needed to go
to your talk.

So you haven't explained a damned thing to me, and I'm annoyed at you.
Do better.  Starting with your cover letter.






[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux