lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCHv7 00/14] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory
    On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:41 AM Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com> wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:37:10AM -0600, Peter Gonda wrote:
    > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 6:03 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
    > > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > UEFI Specification version 2.9 introduces the concept of memory
    > > > acceptance: some Virtual Machine platforms, such as Intel TDX or AMD
    > > > SEV-SNP, requiring memory to be accepted before it can be used by the
    > > > guest. Accepting happens via a protocol specific for the Virtual
    > > > Machine platform.
    > > >
    > > > Accepting memory is costly and it makes VMM allocate memory for the
    > > > accepted guest physical address range. It's better to postpone memory
    > > > acceptance until memory is needed. It lowers boot time and reduces
    > > > memory overhead.
    > > >
    > > > The kernel needs to know what memory has been accepted. Firmware
    > > > communicates this information via memory map: a new memory type --
    > > > EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY -- indicates such memory.
    > > >
    > > > Range-based tracking works fine for firmware, but it gets bulky for
    > > > the kernel: e820 has to be modified on every page acceptance. It leads
    > > > to table fragmentation, but there's a limited number of entries in the
    > > > e820 table
    > > >
    > > > Another option is to mark such memory as usable in e820 and track if the
    > > > range has been accepted in a bitmap. One bit in the bitmap represents
    > > > 2MiB in the address space: one 4k page is enough to track 64GiB or
    > > > physical address space.
    > > >
    > > > In the worst-case scenario -- a huge hole in the middle of the
    > > > address space -- It needs 256MiB to handle 4PiB of the address
    > > > space.
    > > >
    > > > Any unaccepted memory that is not aligned to 2M gets accepted upfront.
    > > >
    > > > The approach lowers boot time substantially. Boot to shell is ~2.5x
    > > > faster for 4G TDX VM and ~4x faster for 64G.
    > > >
    > > > TDX-specific code isolated from the core of unaccepted memory support. It
    > > > supposed to help to plug-in different implementation of unaccepted memory
    > > > such as SEV-SNP.
    > > >
    > > > The tree can be found here:
    > > >
    > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fintel%2Ftdx.git&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cmichael.roth%40amd.com%7C73bacba017c84291482a08da55ffd481%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637916854542432349%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=P%2FUJOL305xo85NLXGxGouQVGHgzLJpmBdNyZ7Re5%2FB0%3D&amp;reserved=0 guest-unaccepted-memory
    > >
    > > Hi Kirill,
    > >
    > > I have a couple questions about this feature mainly about how cloud
    > > customers can use this, I assume since this is a confidential compute
    > > feature a large number of the users of these patches will be cloud
    > > customers using TDX and SNP. One issue I see with these patches is how
    > > do we as a cloud provider know whether a customer's linux image
    > > supports this feature, if the image doesn't have these patches UEFI
    > > needs to fully validate the memory, if the image does we can use this
    > > new protocol. In GCE we supply our VMs with a version of the EDK2 FW
    > > and the customer doesn't input into which UEFI we run, as far as I can
    > > tell from the Azure SNP VM documentation it seems very similar. We
    > > need to somehow tell our UEFI in the VM what to do based on the image.
    > > The current way I can see to solve this issue would be to have our
    > > customers give us metadata about their VM's image but this seems kinda
    > > burdensome on our customers (I assume we'll have more features which
    > > both UEFI and kernel need to both support inorder to be turned on like
    > > this one) and error-prone, if a customer incorrectly labels their
    >
    > > image it may fail to boot.. Has there been any discussion about how to
    > > solve this? My naive thoughts were what if UEFI and Kernel had some
    > > sort of feature negotiation. Maybe that could happen via an extension
    > > to exit boot services or a UEFI runtime driver, I'm not sure what's
    > > best here just some ideas.
    >
    > Not sure if you've seen this thread or not, but there's also been some
    > discussion around this in the context of the UEFI support:
    >
    > https://patchew.org/EDK2/cover.1654420875.git.min.m.xu@intel.com/cce5ea2aaaeddd9ce9df6fa7ac1ef52976c5c7e6.1654420876.git.min.m.xu@intel.com/#20220608061805.vvsjiqt55rqnl3fw@sirius.home.kraxel.org
    >
    > 2 things being discussed there really, which I think roughly boil down
    > to:
    >
    > 1) how to configure OVMF to enable/disable lazy acceptance
    > - compile time option most likely: accept-all/accept-minimum/accept-1GB
    >
    > 2) how to introduce an automatic mode in the future where OVMF does the
    > right thing based on what the guest supports. Gerd floated the idea of
    > tying it to ExitBootServices as well, but not sure there's a solid
    > plan on what to do here yet.
    >
    > If that's accurate, it seems like the only 'safe' option is to disable it via
    > #1 (accept-all), and then when #2 comes along, compile OVMF to just Do The
    > Right Thing.
    >
    > Users who know their VMs implement lazy acceptance can force it on via
    > accept-all OVMF compile option.

    Thanks for this Mike! I will bring this to the EDK2 community.

    The issue for us is our users use a GCE built EDK2 not their own
    compiled version so they don't have the choice. Reading the Azure docs
    it seems the same for them, and for AWS so I don't know how often
    customers actually get to bring their own firmware.

    >
    > -Mike

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-06-24 20:06    [W:4.809 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site