Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 12/12] net: netvsc: Add Isolation VM support for netvsc
 driver
To:     Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        "wei.liu@kernel.org" <wei.liu@kernel.org>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "konrad.wilk@oracle.com" <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        "boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        "jgross@suse.com" <jgross@suse.com>,
        "sstabellini@kernel.org" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "jejb@linux.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>, "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>,
        "m.szyprowski@samsung.com" <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        "robin.murphy@arm.com" <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        "brijesh.singh@amd.com" <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@amd.com" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        "pgonda@google.com" <pgonda@google.com>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        "rppt@kernel.org" <rppt@kernel.org>,
        "sfr@canb.auug.org.au" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        "aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        "saravanand@fb.com" <saravanand@fb.com>,
        "krish.sadhukhan@oracle.com" <krish.sadhukhan@oracle.com>,
        "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>,
        "rientjes@google.com" <rientjes@google.com>
Cc:     "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        vkuznets <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        "parri.andrea@gmail.com" <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        "dave.hansen@intel.com" <dave.hansen@intel.com>
References: <20210914133916.1440931-1-ltykernel@gmail.com>
 <20210914133916.1440931-13-ltykernel@gmail.com>
 <MWHPR21MB15939A5D74CA1DF25EE816ADD7DB9@MWHPR21MB1593.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <850a0129-ef82-67e9-165f-8503da6889dd@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 22:43:56 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR21MB15939A5D74CA1DF25EE816ADD7DB9@MWHPR21MB1593.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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.