On 9/16/2021 12:21 AM, Michael Kelley wrote:
I think you are proposing this approach to allocating memory for the send and receive buffers so that you can avoid having two virtual mappings for the memory, per comments from Christop Hellwig. But overall, the approach seems a bit complex and I wonder if it is worth it. If allocating large contiguous chunks of physical memory is successful, then there is some memory savings in that the data structures needed to keep track of the physical pages is smaller than the equivalent page tables might be. But if you have to revert to allocating individual pages, then the memory savings is reduced.
Yes, this version follows idea from Christop in the previous discussion.(https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/9/2/112) This patch shows the implementation and check whether this is a right direction.
Ultimately, the list of actual PFNs has to be kept somewhere. Another approach would be to do the reverse of what hv_map_memory() from the v4 patch series does. I.e., you could do virt_to_phys() on each virtual address that maps above VTOM, and subtract out the shared_gpa_boundary to get the list of actual PFNs that need to be freed.
virt_to_phys() doesn't work for virtual address returned by vmap/vmap_pfn() (just like it doesn't work for va returned by vmalloc()). The pfn above vTom doesn't have struct page backing and
vmap_pfn() populates the pfn directly in the pte.(Please see the vmap_pfn_apply()). So it's not easy to convert the va to pa.
This way you don't have two copies of the list of PFNs -- one with and one without the shared_gpa_boundary added. But it comes at the cost of additional code so that may not be a great idea. I think what you have here works, and I don't have a clearly better solution at the moment except perhaps to revert to the v4 solution and just have two virtual mappings. I'll keep thinking about it. Maybe Christop has other thoughts.
