[PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: arm64: Use folio for THP adjustment

[Marc Zyngier]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 10:17:17 +0100,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts at arm.com> wrote:
> 
> On 28/09/2023 18:32, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > Since commit cb196ee1ef39 ("mm/huge_memory: convert
> > do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page() to use vma_alloc_folio()"), transparent
> > huge pages use folios. It enables us to check efficiently if a page is
> > mapped by a block simply looking at the folio size. This is saving a
> > page table walk.
> > 
> > It is safe to read the folio in this path. We've just increased its
> > refcount (GUP from __gfn_to_pfn_memslot()). This will prevent attempts
> > of splitting the huge page.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort at google.com>
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > index de5e5148ef5d..69fcbcc7aca5 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > @@ -791,51 +791,6 @@ int create_hyp_exec_mappings(phys_addr_t phys_addr, size_t size,
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static struct kvm_pgtable_mm_ops kvm_user_mm_ops = {
> > -	/* We shouldn't need any other callback to walk the PT */
> > -	.phys_to_virt		= kvm_host_va,
> > -};
> > -
> > -static int get_user_mapping_size(struct kvm *kvm, u64 addr)
> > -{
> > -	struct kvm_pgtable pgt = {
> > -		.pgd		= (kvm_pteref_t)kvm->mm->pgd,
> > -		.ia_bits	= vabits_actual,
> > -		.start_level	= (KVM_PGTABLE_MAX_LEVELS -
> > -				   CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS),
> > -		.mm_ops		= &kvm_user_mm_ops,
> > -	};
> > -	unsigned long flags;
> > -	kvm_pte_t pte = 0;	/* Keep GCC quiet... */
> > -	u32 level = ~0;
> > -	int ret;
> > -
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Disable IRQs so that we hazard against a concurrent
> > -	 * teardown of the userspace page tables (which relies on
> > -	 * IPI-ing threads).
> > -	 */
> > -	local_irq_save(flags);
> > -	ret = kvm_pgtable_get_leaf(&pgt, addr, &pte, &level);
> > -	local_irq_restore(flags);
> > -
> > -	if (ret)
> > -		return ret;
> > -
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Not seeing an error, but not updating level? Something went
> > -	 * deeply wrong...
> > -	 */
> > -	if (WARN_ON(level >= KVM_PGTABLE_MAX_LEVELS))
> > -		return -EFAULT;
> > -
> > -	/* Oops, the userspace PTs are gone... Replay the fault */
> > -	if (!kvm_pte_valid(pte))
> > -		return -EAGAIN;
> > -
> > -	return BIT(ARM64_HW_PGTABLE_LEVEL_SHIFT(level));
> > -}
> > -
> >  static struct kvm_pgtable_mm_ops kvm_s2_mm_ops = {
> >  	.zalloc_page		= stage2_memcache_zalloc_page,
> >  	.zalloc_pages_exact	= kvm_s2_zalloc_pages_exact,
> > @@ -1274,7 +1229,7 @@ static bool fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
> >   *
> >   * Returns the size of the mapping.
> >   */
> > -static long
> > +static unsigned long
> >  transparent_hugepage_adjust(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
> >  			    unsigned long hva, kvm_pfn_t *pfnp,
> >  			    phys_addr_t *ipap)
> > @@ -1287,10 +1242,7 @@ transparent_hugepage_adjust(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
> >  	 * block map is contained within the memslot.
> >  	 */
> >  	if (fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(memslot, hva, PMD_SIZE)) {
> > -		int sz = get_user_mapping_size(kvm, hva);
> > -
> > -		if (sz < 0)
> > -			return sz;
> > +		size_t sz = folio_size(pfn_folio(pfn));
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry this is an extremely late reply - I just noticed this because Marc
> mentioned it in another thread.
> 
> This doesn't look quite right to me; just because you have a folio of a given
> size, that doesn't mean the whole thing is mapped into this particular address
> space. For example, you could have a (PMD-sized) THP that gets partially
> munmapped - the folio is still PMD-sized but only some of it is mapped and
> should be accessible to the process. Or you could have a large file-backed folio
> (from a filesystem that supports large folios - e.g. XFS) but the application
> only mapped part of the file.
> 
> Perhaps I've misunderstood and those edge cases can't happen here for some reason?

I went ahead and applied the following hack to the *current* tree,
with this patch:

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
index 482280fe22d7..de365489a62f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -1291,6 +1291,10 @@ transparent_hugepage_adjust(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
 	 */
 	if (fault_supports_stage2_huge_mapping(memslot, hva, PMD_SIZE)) {
 		int sz = get_user_mapping_size(kvm, hva);
+		size_t fsz = folio_size(pfn_folio(pfn));
+
+		if (sz != fsz)
+			pr_err("sz = %d fsz = %ld\n", sz,  fsz);
 
 		if (sz < 0)
 			return sz;

and sure enough, I see the check firing under *a lot* of memory
pressure:

	[84567.458803] sz = 4096 fsz = 2097152
	[84620.166018] sz = 4096 fsz = 2097152

So indeed, folio_size() doesn't provide what we need. We absolutely
need to match what is actually mapped in userspace or things may turn
out to be rather ugly should the other pages that are part of the same
folio be allocated somewhere else. Is that even possible?

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.