| Message ID | 20240411161441.910170-3-david@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | s390/mm: shared zeropage + KVM fixes | expand |
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 06:14:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
David, Christian,
> Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but (to my understanding) the
Tested-by for v2 does not apply for this version of the patch?
Thanks!
On 11.04.24 18:37, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 06:14:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > David, Christian, > >> Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com> > > Please, correct me if I am wrong, but (to my understanding) the > Tested-by for v2 does not apply for this version of the patch? I thought I'd removed it -- you're absolutely, this should be dropped. Hopefully Christian has time to retest. Thanks!
Am 11.04.24 um 23:09 schrieb David Hildenbrand: > On 11.04.24 18:37, Alexander Gordeev wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 06:14:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> >> David, Christian, >> >>> Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com> >> >> Please, correct me if I am wrong, but (to my understanding) the >> Tested-by for v2 does not apply for this version of the patch? > > I thought I'd removed it -- you're absolutely, this should be dropped. Hopefully Christian has time to retest. So I can confirm that this patch does continue fix the qemu memory consumption for a guest doing managedsave/start. A quick check of other aspects seems to be ok. We will have more coverage on the base functionality as soon as it hits next(via Andrew) as our daily CI will pick this up for lots of KVM tests.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 01:49:15PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: Hi Christian, > > On 11.04.24 18:37, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 06:14:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > David, Christian, > > > > Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com> > > > Please, correct me if I am wrong, but (to my understanding) the > > > Tested-by for v2 does not apply for this version of the patch? > > I thought I'd removed it -- you're absolutely, this should be dropped. Hopefully Christian has time to retest. > > So I can confirm that this patch does continue fix the qemu memory consumption for a guest doing managedsave/start. I will re-add your Tested-by. > A quick check of other aspects seems to be ok. We will have more coverage on the base functionality as soon as it hits next(via Andrew) as our daily CI will pick this up for lots of KVM tests. As per the cover letter I will pull it via s390 tree: "Based on s390/features. Andrew agreed that both patches can go via the s390x tree." Thanks!
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 06:14:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: David, could you please clarify the below questions? > +static int __s390_unshare_zeropages(struct mm_struct *mm) > +{ > + struct vm_area_struct *vma; > + VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0); > + unsigned long addr; > + int rc; > + > + for_each_vma(vmi, vma) { > + /* > + * We could only look at COW mappings, but it's more future > + * proof to catch unexpected zeropages in other mappings and > + * fail. > + */ > + if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) || is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)) > + continue; > + addr = vma->vm_start; > + > +retry: > + rc = walk_page_range_vma(vma, addr, vma->vm_end, > + &find_zeropage_ops, &addr); > + if (rc <= 0) > + continue; So in case an error is returned for the last vma, __s390_unshare_zeropage() finishes with that error. By contrast, the error for a non-last vma would be ignored? > + > + /* addr was updated by find_zeropage_pte_entry() */ > + rc = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, > + FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE | FAULT_FLAG_REMOTE, > + NULL); > + if (rc & VM_FAULT_OOM) > + return -ENOMEM; Heiko pointed out that rc type is inconsistent vs vm_fault_t returned by handle_mm_fault(). While fixing it up, I've got concerned whether is it fine to continue in case any other error is met (including possible future VM_FAULT_xxxx)? > + /* > + * See break_ksm(): even after handle_mm_fault() returned 0, we > + * must start the lookup from the current address, because > + * handle_mm_fault() may back out if there's any difficulty. > + * > + * VM_FAULT_SIGBUS and VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV are unexpected but > + * maybe they could trigger in the future on concurrent > + * truncation. In that case, the shared zeropage would be gone > + * and we can simply retry and make progress. > + */ > + cond_resched(); > + goto retry; > + } > + > + return rc; > +} Thanks!
On 15.04.24 20:24, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 06:14:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > David, could you please clarify the below questions? Sure, let me take a look if we're still missing to handle some corner cases correctly. > >> +static int __s390_unshare_zeropages(struct mm_struct *mm) >> +{ >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma; >> + VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0); >> + unsigned long addr; >> + int rc; >> + >> + for_each_vma(vmi, vma) { >> + /* >> + * We could only look at COW mappings, but it's more future >> + * proof to catch unexpected zeropages in other mappings and >> + * fail. >> + */ >> + if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) || is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)) >> + continue; >> + addr = vma->vm_start; >> + >> +retry: >> + rc = walk_page_range_vma(vma, addr, vma->vm_end, >> + &find_zeropage_ops, &addr); >> + if (rc <= 0) >> + continue; > > So in case an error is returned for the last vma, __s390_unshare_zeropage() > finishes with that error. By contrast, the error for a non-last vma would > be ignored? Right, it looks a bit off. walk_page_range_vma() shouldn't fail unless find_zeropage_pte_entry() would fail -- which would also be very unexpected. To handle it cleanly in case we would ever get a weird zeropage where we don't expect it, we should probably just exit early. Something like the following (not compiled, addressing the comment below): From b97cd17a3697ac402b07fe8d0033f3c10fbd6829 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:56:20 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] fixup Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> --- arch/s390/mm/gmap.c | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c b/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c index 9233b0acac89..3e3322a9cc32 100644 --- a/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c +++ b/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c @@ -2618,7 +2618,8 @@ static int __s390_unshare_zeropages(struct mm_struct *mm) struct vm_area_struct *vma; VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0); unsigned long addr; - int rc; + vm_fault_t rc; + int zero_page; for_each_vma(vmi, vma) { /* @@ -2631,9 +2632,11 @@ static int __s390_unshare_zeropages(struct mm_struct *mm) addr = vma->vm_start; retry: - rc = walk_page_range_vma(vma, addr, vma->vm_end, - &find_zeropage_ops, &addr); - if (rc <= 0) + zero_page = walk_page_range_vma(vma, addr, vma->vm_end, + &find_zeropage_ops, &addr); + if (zero_page < 0) + return zero_page; + else if (!zero_page) continue; /* addr was updated by find_zeropage_pte_entry() */ @@ -2656,7 +2659,7 @@ static int __s390_unshare_zeropages(struct mm_struct *mm) goto retry; } - return rc; + return 0; } static int __s390_disable_cow_sharing(struct mm_struct *mm)
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:14:03PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > +retry: > > > + rc = walk_page_range_vma(vma, addr, vma->vm_end, > > > + &find_zeropage_ops, &addr); > > > + if (rc <= 0) > > > + continue; > > > > So in case an error is returned for the last vma, __s390_unshare_zeropage() > > finishes with that error. By contrast, the error for a non-last vma would > > be ignored? > > Right, it looks a bit off. walk_page_range_vma() shouldn't fail > unless find_zeropage_pte_entry() would fail -- which would also be > very unexpected. > > To handle it cleanly in case we would ever get a weird zeropage where we > don't expect it, we should probably just exit early. > > Something like the following (not compiled, addressing the comment below): > @@ -2618,7 +2618,8 @@ static int __s390_unshare_zeropages(struct mm_struct *mm) > struct vm_area_struct *vma; > VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0); > unsigned long addr; > - int rc; > + vm_fault_t rc; > + int zero_page; I would use "fault" for mm faults (just like everywhere else handle_mm_fault() is called) and leave rc as is: vm_fault_t fault; int rc; > for_each_vma(vmi, vma) { > /* > @@ -2631,9 +2632,11 @@ static int __s390_unshare_zeropages(struct mm_struct *mm) > addr = vma->vm_start; > retry: > - rc = walk_page_range_vma(vma, addr, vma->vm_end, > - &find_zeropage_ops, &addr); > - if (rc <= 0) > + zero_page = walk_page_range_vma(vma, addr, vma->vm_end, > + &find_zeropage_ops, &addr); > + if (zero_page < 0) > + return zero_page; > + else if (!zero_page) > continue; > /* addr was updated by find_zeropage_pte_entry() */ > @@ -2656,7 +2659,7 @@ static int __s390_unshare_zeropages(struct mm_struct *mm) > goto retry; > } > - return rc; > + return 0; > } > static int __s390_disable_cow_sharing(struct mm_struct *mm) ... > > > + /* addr was updated by find_zeropage_pte_entry() */ > > > + rc = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, > > > + FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE | FAULT_FLAG_REMOTE, > > > + NULL); > > > + if (rc & VM_FAULT_OOM) > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > Heiko pointed out that rc type is inconsistent vs vm_fault_t returned by > > Right, let's use another variable for that. > > > handle_mm_fault(). While fixing it up, I've got concerned whether is it > > fine to continue in case any other error is met (including possible future > > VM_FAULT_xxxx)? > > Such future changes would similarly break break_ksm(). Staring at it, I do wonder > if break_ksm() should be handling VM_FAULT_HWPOISON ... very likely we should > handle it and fail -- we might get an MC while copying from the source page. > > VM_FAULT_HWPOISON on the shared zeropage would imply a lot of trouble, so > I'm not concerned about that for the case here, but handling it in the future > would be cleaner. > > Note that we always retry the lookup, so we won't just skip a zeropage on unexpected > errors. > > We could piggy-back on vm_fault_to_errno(). We could use > vm_fault_to_errno(rc, FOLL_HWPOISON), and only continue (retry) if the rc is 0 or > -EFAULT, otherwise fail with the returned error. > > But I'd do that as a follow up, and also use it in break_ksm() in the same fashion. @Christian, do you agree with this suggestion? Thanks!
On 16.04.24 08:37, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:14:03PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> +retry: >>>> + rc = walk_page_range_vma(vma, addr, vma->vm_end, >>>> + &find_zeropage_ops, &addr); >>>> + if (rc <= 0) >>>> + continue; >>> >>> So in case an error is returned for the last vma, __s390_unshare_zeropage() >>> finishes with that error. By contrast, the error for a non-last vma would >>> be ignored? >> >> Right, it looks a bit off. walk_page_range_vma() shouldn't fail >> unless find_zeropage_pte_entry() would fail -- which would also be >> very unexpected. >> >> To handle it cleanly in case we would ever get a weird zeropage where we >> don't expect it, we should probably just exit early. >> >> Something like the following (not compiled, addressing the comment below): > >> @@ -2618,7 +2618,8 @@ static int __s390_unshare_zeropages(struct mm_struct *mm) >> struct vm_area_struct *vma; >> VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0); >> unsigned long addr; >> - int rc; >> + vm_fault_t rc; >> + int zero_page; > > I would use "fault" for mm faults (just like everywhere else handle_mm_fault() is > called) and leave rc as is: > > vm_fault_t fault; > int rc; Sure, let me know once discussion here stopped whether you want a v4 or can fix that up.
Am 16.04.24 um 08:37 schrieb Alexander Gordeev: >> We could piggy-back on vm_fault_to_errno(). We could use >> vm_fault_to_errno(rc, FOLL_HWPOISON), and only continue (retry) if the rc is 0 or >> -EFAULT, otherwise fail with the returned error. >> >> But I'd do that as a follow up, and also use it in break_ksm() in the same fashion. > > @Christian, do you agree with this suggestion? I would need to look into that more closely to give a proper answer. In general I am ok with this but I prefer to have more eyes on that. From what I can tell we should cover all the normal cases with our CI as soon as it hits next. But maybe we should try to create/change a selftest to trigger these error cases?
On 16.04.24 14:02, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > Am 16.04.24 um 08:37 schrieb Alexander Gordeev: > >>> We could piggy-back on vm_fault_to_errno(). We could use >>> vm_fault_to_errno(rc, FOLL_HWPOISON), and only continue (retry) if the rc is 0 or >>> -EFAULT, otherwise fail with the returned error. >>> >>> But I'd do that as a follow up, and also use it in break_ksm() in the same fashion. >> >> @Christian, do you agree with this suggestion? > > I would need to look into that more closely to give a proper answer. In general I am ok > with this but I prefer to have more eyes on that. > From what I can tell we should cover all the normal cases with our CI as soon as it hits > next. But maybe we should try to create/change a selftest to trigger these error cases? If we find a shared zeropage we expect the next unsharing fault to succeed except: (1) OOM, in which case we translate to -ENOMEM. (2) Some obscure race with MADV_DONTNEED paired with concurrent truncate(), in which case we get an error, but if we look again, we will find the shared zeropage no longer mapped. (this is what break_ksm() describes) (3) MCE while copying the page, which doesn't quite apply here. For the time being, we only get shared zeropages in (a) anon mappings (b) MAP_PRIVATE shmem mappings via UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE. So (2) is hard or even impossible to trigger. (1) is hard to test as well, and (3) ... No easy way to extend selftests that I can see. If we repeatedly find a shared zeropage in a COW mapping and get an error from the unsharing fault, something else would be deeply flawed. So I'm not really worried about that, but I agree that having a more centralized check will make sense.
Am 16.04.24 um 15:41 schrieb David Hildenbrand: > On 16.04.24 14:02, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >> >> Am 16.04.24 um 08:37 schrieb Alexander Gordeev: >> >>>> We could piggy-back on vm_fault_to_errno(). We could use >>>> vm_fault_to_errno(rc, FOLL_HWPOISON), and only continue (retry) if the rc is 0 or >>>> -EFAULT, otherwise fail with the returned error. >>>> >>>> But I'd do that as a follow up, and also use it in break_ksm() in the same fashion. >>> >>> @Christian, do you agree with this suggestion? >> >> I would need to look into that more closely to give a proper answer. In general I am ok >> with this but I prefer to have more eyes on that. >> From what I can tell we should cover all the normal cases with our CI as soon as it hits >> next. But maybe we should try to create/change a selftest to trigger these error cases? > > If we find a shared zeropage we expect the next unsharing fault to succeed except: > > (1) OOM, in which case we translate to -ENOMEM. > > (2) Some obscure race with MADV_DONTNEED paired with concurrent truncate(), in which case we get an error, but if we look again, we will find the shared zeropage no longer mapped. (this is what break_ksm() describes) > > (3) MCE while copying the page, which doesn't quite apply here. > > For the time being, we only get shared zeropages in (a) anon mappings (b) MAP_PRIVATE shmem mappings via UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE. So (2) is hard or even impossible to trigger. (1) is hard to test as well, and (3) ... > > No easy way to extend selftests that I can see. Yes, lets just go forward. > > If we repeatedly find a shared zeropage in a COW mapping and get an error from the unsharing fault, something else would be deeply flawed. So I'm not really worried about that, but I agree that having a more centralized check will make sense.
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/gmap.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/gmap.h index 5cc46e0dde62..9725586f4259 100644 --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/gmap.h +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/gmap.h @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ int gmap_mprotect_notify(struct gmap *, unsigned long start, void gmap_sync_dirty_log_pmd(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long dirty_bitmap[4], unsigned long gaddr, unsigned long vmaddr); -int gmap_mark_unmergeable(void); +int s390_disable_cow_sharing(void); void s390_unlist_old_asce(struct gmap *gmap); int s390_replace_asce(struct gmap *gmap); void s390_uv_destroy_pfns(unsigned long count, unsigned long *pfns); diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu.h index bb1b4bef1878..4c2dc7abc285 100644 --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu.h +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu.h @@ -32,6 +32,11 @@ typedef struct { unsigned int uses_skeys:1; /* The mmu context uses CMM. */ unsigned int uses_cmm:1; + /* + * The mmu context allows COW-sharing of memory pages (KSM, zeropage). + * Note that COW-sharing during fork() is currently always allowed. + */ + unsigned int allow_cow_sharing:1; /* The gmaps associated with this context are allowed to use huge pages. */ unsigned int allow_gmap_hpage_1m:1; } mm_context_t; diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h index 929af18b0908..a7789a9f6218 100644 --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ static inline int init_new_context(struct task_struct *tsk, mm->context.has_pgste = 0; mm->context.uses_skeys = 0; mm->context.uses_cmm = 0; + mm->context.allow_cow_sharing = 1; mm->context.allow_gmap_hpage_1m = 0; #endif switch (mm->context.asce_limit) { diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h index 60950e7a25f5..259c2439c251 100644 --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h @@ -566,10 +566,20 @@ static inline pud_t set_pud_bit(pud_t pud, pgprot_t prot) } /* - * In the case that a guest uses storage keys - * faults should no longer be backed by zero pages + * As soon as the guest uses storage keys or enables PV, we deduplicate all + * mapped shared zeropages and prevent new shared zeropages from getting + * mapped. */ -#define mm_forbids_zeropage mm_has_pgste +#define mm_forbids_zeropage mm_forbids_zeropage +static inline int mm_forbids_zeropage(struct mm_struct *mm) +{ +#ifdef CONFIG_PGSTE + if (!mm->context.allow_cow_sharing) + return 1; +#endif + return 0; +} + static inline int mm_uses_skeys(struct mm_struct *mm) { #ifdef CONFIG_PGSTE diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c index 5147b943a864..db3392f0be21 100644 --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c @@ -2631,9 +2631,7 @@ static int kvm_s390_handle_pv(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_pv_cmd *cmd) if (r) break; - mmap_write_lock(current->mm); - r = gmap_mark_unmergeable(); - mmap_write_unlock(current->mm); + r = s390_disable_cow_sharing(); if (r) break; diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c b/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c index 094b43b121cd..9233b0acac89 100644 --- a/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c +++ b/arch/s390/mm/gmap.c @@ -2549,41 +2549,6 @@ static inline void thp_split_mm(struct mm_struct *mm) } #endif /* CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE */ -/* - * Remove all empty zero pages from the mapping for lazy refaulting - * - This must be called after mm->context.has_pgste is set, to avoid - * future creation of zero pages - * - This must be called after THP was disabled. - * - * mm contracts with s390, that even if mm were to remove a page table, - * racing with the loop below and so causing pte_offset_map_lock() to fail, - * it will never insert a page table containing empty zero pages once - * mm_forbids_zeropage(mm) i.e. mm->context.has_pgste is set. - */ -static int __zap_zero_pages(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long start, - unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk) -{ - unsigned long addr; - - for (addr = start; addr != end; addr += PAGE_SIZE) { - pte_t *ptep; - spinlock_t *ptl; - - ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(walk->mm, pmd, addr, &ptl); - if (!ptep) - break; - if (is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(*ptep))) - ptep_xchg_direct(walk->mm, addr, ptep, __pte(_PAGE_INVALID)); - pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl); - } - return 0; -} - -static const struct mm_walk_ops zap_zero_walk_ops = { - .pmd_entry = __zap_zero_pages, - .walk_lock = PGWALK_WRLOCK, -}; - /* * switch on pgstes for its userspace process (for kvm) */ @@ -2601,22 +2566,140 @@ int s390_enable_sie(void) mm->context.has_pgste = 1; /* split thp mappings and disable thp for future mappings */ thp_split_mm(mm); - walk_page_range(mm, 0, TASK_SIZE, &zap_zero_walk_ops, NULL); mmap_write_unlock(mm); return 0; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(s390_enable_sie); -int gmap_mark_unmergeable(void) +static int find_zeropage_pte_entry(pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, + unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk) +{ + unsigned long *found_addr = walk->private; + + /* Return 1 of the page is a zeropage. */ + if (is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(*pte))) { + + /* + * Shared zeropage in e.g., a FS DAX mapping? We cannot do the + * right thing and likely don't care: FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE + * currently only works in COW mappings, which is also where + * mm_forbids_zeropage() is checked. + */ + if (!is_cow_mapping(walk->vma->vm_flags)) + return -EFAULT; + + *found_addr = addr; + return 1; + } + return 0; +} + +static const struct mm_walk_ops find_zeropage_ops = { + .pte_entry = find_zeropage_pte_entry, + .walk_lock = PGWALK_WRLOCK, +}; + +/* + * Unshare all shared zeropages, replacing them by anonymous pages. Note that + * we cannot simply zap all shared zeropages, because this could later + * trigger unexpected userfaultfd missing events. + * + * This must be called after mm->context.allow_cow_sharing was + * set to 0, to avoid future mappings of shared zeropages. + * + * mm contracts with s390, that even if mm were to remove a page table, + * and racing with walk_page_range_vma() calling pte_offset_map_lock() + * would fail, it will never insert a page table containing empty zero + * pages once mm_forbids_zeropage(mm) i.e. + * mm->context.allow_cow_sharing is set to 0. + */ +static int __s390_unshare_zeropages(struct mm_struct *mm) +{ + struct vm_area_struct *vma; + VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0); + unsigned long addr; + int rc; + + for_each_vma(vmi, vma) { + /* + * We could only look at COW mappings, but it's more future + * proof to catch unexpected zeropages in other mappings and + * fail. + */ + if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_PFNMAP) || is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)) + continue; + addr = vma->vm_start; + +retry: + rc = walk_page_range_vma(vma, addr, vma->vm_end, + &find_zeropage_ops, &addr); + if (rc <= 0) + continue; + + /* addr was updated by find_zeropage_pte_entry() */ + rc = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, + FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE | FAULT_FLAG_REMOTE, + NULL); + if (rc & VM_FAULT_OOM) + return -ENOMEM; + /* + * See break_ksm(): even after handle_mm_fault() returned 0, we + * must start the lookup from the current address, because + * handle_mm_fault() may back out if there's any difficulty. + * + * VM_FAULT_SIGBUS and VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV are unexpected but + * maybe they could trigger in the future on concurrent + * truncation. In that case, the shared zeropage would be gone + * and we can simply retry and make progress. + */ + cond_resched(); + goto retry; + } + + return rc; +} + +static int __s390_disable_cow_sharing(struct mm_struct *mm) { + int rc; + + if (!mm->context.allow_cow_sharing) + return 0; + + mm->context.allow_cow_sharing = 0; + + /* Replace all shared zeropages by anonymous pages. */ + rc = __s390_unshare_zeropages(mm); /* * Make sure to disable KSM (if enabled for the whole process or * individual VMAs). Note that nothing currently hinders user space * from re-enabling it. */ - return ksm_disable(current->mm); + if (!rc) + rc = ksm_disable(mm); + if (rc) + mm->context.allow_cow_sharing = 1; + return rc; +} + +/* + * Disable most COW-sharing of memory pages for the whole process: + * (1) Disable KSM and unmerge/unshare any KSM pages. + * (2) Disallow shared zeropages and unshare any zerpages that are mapped. + * + * Not that we currently don't bother with COW-shared pages that are shared + * with parent/child processes due to fork(). + */ +int s390_disable_cow_sharing(void) +{ + int rc; + + mmap_write_lock(current->mm); + rc = __s390_disable_cow_sharing(current->mm); + mmap_write_unlock(current->mm); + return rc; } -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gmap_mark_unmergeable); +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(s390_disable_cow_sharing); /* * Enable storage key handling from now on and initialize the storage @@ -2685,7 +2768,7 @@ int s390_enable_skey(void) goto out_up; mm->context.uses_skeys = 1; - rc = gmap_mark_unmergeable(); + rc = __s390_disable_cow_sharing(mm); if (rc) { mm->context.uses_skeys = 0; goto out_up;
commit fa41ba0d08de ("s390/mm: avoid empty zero pages for KVM guests to avoid postcopy hangs") introduced an undesired side effect when combined with memory ballooning and VM migration: memory part of the inflated memory balloon will consume memory. Assuming we have a 100GiB VM and inflated the balloon to 40GiB. Our VM will consume ~60GiB of memory. If we now trigger a VM migration, hypervisors like QEMU will read all VM memory. As s390x does not support the shared zeropage, we'll end up allocating for all previously-inflated memory part of the memory balloon: 50 GiB. So we might easily (unexpectedly) crash the VM on the migration source. Even worse, hypervisors like QEMU optimize for zeropage migration to not consume memory on the migration destination: when migrating a "page full of zeroes", on the migration destination they check whether the target memory is already zero (by reading the destination memory) and avoid writing to the memory to not allocate memory: however, s390x will also allocate memory here, implying that also on the migration destination, we will end up allocating all previously-inflated memory part of the memory balloon. This is especially bad if actual memory overcommit was not desired, when memory ballooning is used for dynamic VM memory resizing, setting aside some memory during boot that can be added later on demand. Alternatives like virtio-mem that would avoid this issue are not yet available on s390x. There could be ways to optimize some cases in user space: before reading memory in an anonymous private mapping on the migration source, check via /proc/self/pagemap if anything is already populated. Similarly check on the migration destination before reading. While that would avoid populating tables full of shared zeropages on all architectures, it's harder to get right and performant, and requires user space changes. Further, with posctopy live migration we must place a page, so there, "avoid touching memory to avoid allocating memory" is not really possible. (Note that a previously we would have falsely inserted shared zeropages into processes using UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE where mm_forbids_zeropage() would have actually forbidden it) PV is currently incompatible with memory ballooning, and in the common case, KVM guests don't make use of storage keys. Instead of zapping zeropages when enabling storage keys / PV, that turned out to be problematic in the past, let's do exactly the same we do with KSM pages: trigger unsharing faults to replace the shared zeropages by proper anonymous folios. What about added latency when enabling storage kes? Having a lot of zeropages in applicable environments (PV, legacy guests, unittests) is unexpected. Further, KSM could today already unshare the zeropages and unmerging KSM pages when enabling storage kets would unshare the KSM-placed zeropages in the same way, resulting in the same latency. Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com> Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com> Fixes: fa41ba0d08de ("s390/mm: avoid empty zero pages for KVM guests to avoid postcopy hangs") Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> --- arch/s390/include/asm/gmap.h | 2 +- arch/s390/include/asm/mmu.h | 5 + arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 1 + arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h | 16 ++- arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 4 +- arch/s390/mm/gmap.c | 163 +++++++++++++++++++++------- 6 files changed, 144 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)