[PATCH v4 6/6] mm: secretmem: add ability to reserve memory at boot

[David Hildenbrand]

On 20.08.20 17:52, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 07:45:29PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 19.08.20 19:33, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:10:43PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 19.08.20 13:53, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:49:05PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> On 18.08.20 16:15, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Mike Rapoport <rppt at linux.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Taking pages out from the direct map and bringing them back may create
>>>>>>> undesired fragmentation and usage of the smaller pages in the direct
>>>>>>> mapping of the physical memory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This can be avoided if a significantly large area of the physical memory
>>>>>>> would be reserved for secretmem purposes at boot time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Add ability to reserve physical memory for secretmem at boot time using
>>>>>>> "secretmem" kernel parameter and then use that reserved memory as a global
>>>>>>> pool for secret memory needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't something like CMA be the better fit? Just wondering. Then, the
>>>>>> memory can actually be reused for something else while not needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The memory allocated as secret is removed from the direct map and the
>>>>> boot time reservation is intended to reduce direct map fragmentatioan
>>>>> and to avoid splitting 1G pages there. So with CMA I'd still need to
>>>>> allocate 1G chunks for this and once 1G page is dropped from the direct
>>>>> map it still cannot be reused for anything else until it is freed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could use CMA to do the boot time reservation, but doing the
>>>>> reservesion directly seemed simpler and more explicit to me.
>>>>
>>>> Well, using CMA would give you the possibility to let the memory be used
>>>> for other purposes until you decide it's the right time to take it +
>>>> remove the direct mapping etc.
>>>
>>> I still can't say I follow you here. If I reseve a CMA area as a pool
>>> for secret memory 1G pages, it is still reserved and it still cannot be
>>> used for other purposes, right?
>>
>> So, AFAIK, if you create a CMA pool it can be used for any MOVABLE
>> allocations (similar to ZONE_MOVABLE) until you actually allocate CMA
>> memory from that region. Other allocations on that are will then be
>> migrated away (using alloc_contig_range()).
>>
>> For example, if you have a 1~GiB CMA area, you could allocate 4~MB pages
>> from that CMA area on demand (removing the direct mapping, etc ..), and
>> free when no longer needed (instantiating the direct mapping). The free
>> memory in that area could used for MOVABLE allocations.
> 
> The boot time resrvation is intended to avoid splitting 1G pages in the
> direct map. Without the boot time reservation, we maintain a pool of 2M
> pages so the 1G pages are split and 2M pages remain unsplit.
> 
> If I scale your example to match the requirement to avoid splitting 1G
> pages in the direct map, that would mean creating a CMA area of several
> tens of gigabytes and then doing cma_alloc() of 1G each time we need to
> refill the secretmem pool. 
> 
> It is quite probable that we won't be able to get 1G from CMA after the
> system worked for some time.

Why? It should only contain movable pages, and if that is not the case,
it's a bug we have to fix. It should behave just as ZONE_MOVABLE.
(although I agree that in corner cases, alloc_contig_pages() might
temporarily fail on some chunks - e.g., with long/short-term page
pinnings - in contrast to memory offlining, it won't retry forever)

> 
> With boot time reservation we won't need physcally contiguous 1G to
> satisfy smaller allocation requests for secretmem because we don't need
> to maintain 1G mappings in the secretmem pool.

You can allocate within your CMA area however you want - doesn't need to
be whole gigabytes in case there is no need for it.

Again, the big benefit of CMA is that the reserved memory can be reused
for other purpose while nobody is actually making use of it.

> 
> That said, I believe the addition of the boot time reservation, either
> direct or with CMA, can be added as an incrememntal patch after the
> "core" functionality is merged.

I am not convinced that we want to let random processes to do
alloc_pages() in the range of tens of gigabytes. It's not just mlocked
memory. I prefer either using CMA or relying on the boot time
reservations. But let's see if there are other opinions and people just
don't care.

Having that said, I have no further comments.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb