David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 28.02.25 18:22, Fuad Tabba wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 at 08:24, Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:24:54PM +0000, Fuad Tabba wrote:
>>>> Add the KVM capability KVM_CAP_GMEM_SHARED_MEM, which indicates
>>>> that the VM supports shared memory in guest_memfd, or that the
>>>> host can create VMs that support shared memory. Supporting shared
>>>> memory implies that memory can be mapped when shared with the
>>>> host.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Fuad Tabba <tabba@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 +
>>>> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 ++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>>>> index 45e6d8fca9b9..117937a895da 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>>>> @@ -929,6 +929,7 @@ struct kvm_enable_cap {
>>>> #define KVM_CAP_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY 236
>>>> #define KVM_CAP_X86_APIC_BUS_CYCLES_NS 237
>>>> #define KVM_CAP_X86_GUEST_MODE 238
>>>> +#define KVM_CAP_GMEM_SHARED_MEM 239
>>>
>>> I think SHARED_MEM is ok. Said that, to me the use case in this series is
>>> more about "in-place" rather than "shared".
>>>
>>> In comparison, what I'm recently looking at is a "more" shared mode of
>>> guest-memfd where it works almost like memfd. So all pages will be shared
>>> there.
>>>
>>> That helps me e.g. for the N:1 kvm binding issue I mentioned in another
>>> email (in one of my relies in previous version), in which case I want to
>>> enable gmemfd folios to be mapped more than once in a process.
>>>
>>> That'll work there as long as it's fully shared, because all things can be
>>> registered in the old VA way, then there's no need to have N:1 restriction.
>>> IOW, gmemfd will still rely on mmu notifier for tearing downs, and the
>>> gmem->bindings will always be empty.
>>>
>>> So if this one would be called "in-place", then I'll have my use case as
>>> "shared".
>>
>> I understand what you mean. The naming here is to be consistent with
>> the rest of the series. I don't really have a strong opinion. It means
>> SHARED_IN_PLACE, but then that would be a mouthful. :)
>
> I'll note that Patrick is also driving it in "all shared" mode for his
> direct-map removal series IIRC.
>
> So we would have
>
> a) All private
> b) Mixing of private and shared (incl conversion)
> c) All shared
>
> "IN_PLACE" might be the wrong angle to look at it.
How about something like "supports_mmap" or "mmap_capable"?
So like
+ KVM_CAP_GMEM_MMAP
+ CONFIG_KVM_GMEM_MMAP_CAPABLE
+ kvm_arch_gmem_mmap_capable()
I'm just trying to avoid the use of shared, which could already mean
+ shared between processes
+ shared between guest and host
