Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: MMU: support VMAs that got remap_pfn_range-ed

[Xiao Guangrong]

On 07/04/2016 04:45 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 07/04/2016 04:41 PM, Neo Jia wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 04:19:20PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > > On 07/04/2016 03:53 PM, Neo Jia wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:37:35PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > > > > On 07/04/2016 03:03 PM, Neo Jia wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 02:39:22PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > > > > > > On 06/30/2016 09:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > > > > > The vGPU folks would like to trap the first access to a BAR by setting
> > > > > > > > vm_ops on the VMAs produced by mmap-ing a VFIO device.  The fault handler
> > > > > > > > then can use remap_pfn_range to place some non-reserved pages in the VMA.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why does it require fetching the pfn when the fault is triggered rather
> > > > > > > than when mmap() is called?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Guangrong,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > as such mapping information between virtual mmio to physical mmio is only available
> > > > > > at runtime.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, i do not know what the different between mmap() and the time VM actually
> > > > > accesses the memory for your case. Could you please more detail?
> > > >
> > > > Hi Guangrong,
> > > >
> > > > Sure. The mmap() gets called by qemu or any VFIO API userspace consumer when
> > > > setting up the virtual mmio, at that moment nobody has any knowledge about how
> > > > the physical mmio gets virtualized.
> > > >
> > > > When the vm (or application if we don't want to limit ourselves to vmm term)
> > > > starts, the virtual and physical mmio gets mapped by mpci kernel module with the
> > > > help from vendor supplied mediated host driver according to the hw resource
> > > > assigned to this vm / application.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your expiation.
> > >
> > > It sounds like a strategy of resource allocation, you delay the allocation until VM really
> > > accesses it, right?
> >
> > Yes, that is where the fault handler inside mpci code comes to the picture.
>
>
> I am not sure this strategy is good. The instance is successfully created, and it is started
> successful, but the VM is crashed due to the resource of that instance is not enough. That sounds
> unreasonable.

Especially, you can not squeeze this kind of memory to balance the usage between all VMs. Does
this strategy still make sense?