lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V5 12/12] net: netvsc: Add Isolation VM support for netvsc driver
From
Date
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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-16 16:45    [W:0.134 / U:1.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site