Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <75243b83-f85d-3d51-7df4-3e95abbb7ef4@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:00:56 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.3.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>
References: <55d7f0bd-ace1-506b-ea5b-105a86290114@redhat.com>
 <f753391e-7bdc-bada-856a-87344e75bd74@redhat.com>
 <111a46c1-7082-62e3-4f3a-860a95cd560a@redhat.com>
 <14d5b8f2-7cb6-ce24-c7a7-32aa9117c953@redhat.com>
 <YzIZhn47brWBfQah@google.com>
 <3b04db9d-0177-7e6e-a54c-a28ada8b1d36@redhat.com>
 <YzMdjSkKaJ8HyWXh@google.com>
 <dd6db8c9-80b1-b6c5-29b8-5eced48f1303@redhat.com>
 <YzRvMZDoukMbeaxR@google.com>
 <8534dfe4-bc71-2c14-b268-e610a3111d14@redhat.com>
 <YzSxhHzgNKHL3Cvm@google.com>
 <d8d2bd39-cbb3-010d-266a-4e967765a382@redhat.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] kvm: implement atomic memslot updates
In-Reply-To: <d8d2bd39-cbb3-010d-266a-4e967765a382@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

> The main cases are:
> 
> - for the boot case, splitting and merging existing memslots.  QEMU
> likes to merge adjacent memory regions into a single memslot, so if
> something goes from read-write to read-only it has to be split and vice
> versa.  I guess a "don't merge this memory region" flag would be the
> less hideous way to solve it in userspace.
> 
> - however, there is also the case of resizing an existing memslot which
> is what David would like to have for virtio-mem.  This is not really
> fixable because part of the appeal of virtio-mem is to have a single
> huge memslot instead of many smaller ones, in order to reduce the
> granularity of add/remove (David, correct me if I'm wrong).

Yes, the most important case I am working on in that regard is reducing 
the memslot size/overhead when only exposing comparatively little memory 
towards a VM using virtio-mem (say, a virtio-mem device that could grow 
to 1 TiB, but we initially only expose 1 GiB to the VM).

One approach I prototyped in the past (where my RFC for atomic updates 
came into play because I ran into this issue) to achieve that was 
dynamically growing (and eventually shrinking) a single memslot on demand.

An alternative [1] uses multiple individual memslots, and exposes them 
on demand. There, I have to make sure that QEMU won't merge adjacent 
memslots into a bigger one -- because otherwise, we'd again need atomic 
memslot updates again, which KVM, vhost-user, ... don't support. But in 
the future, I think we want to have that: if there is no fragmentation, 
we should only have a single large memslot and all memslot consumers 
should be able to cope with atomic updates.


So in any case, I will have good use for atomic memslot updates. Just 
like other hypervisors that (will) implement virtio-mem or something 
comparable :)

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211013103330.26869-1-david@redhat.com/T/#u

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb