Re: [PATCH v7 00/14] KVM: mm: fd-based approach for supporting KVM guest private memory

[Nikunj A. Dadhania]

On 11/08/22 19:02, Chao Peng wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 01:30:06PM +0200, Gupta, Pankaj wrote:
>>>
>>> While debugging an issue with SEV+UPM, found that fallocate() returns
>>> an error in QEMU which is not handled (EINTR). With the below handling
>>> of EINTR subsequent fallocate() succeeds:
> 
> QEMU code has not well-tested so it's not strange you met problem. But
> from the man page, there is signal was caught for EINTR, do you know
> the signal number?
> 
> Thanks for you patch but before we change it in QEMU I want to make sure
> it's indeed a QEMU issue (e.g. not a kernel isssue).
> 
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/backends/hostmem-memfd-private.c b/backends/hostmem-memfd-private.c
>>> index af8fb0c957..e8597ed28d 100644
>>> --- a/backends/hostmem-memfd-private.c
>>> +++ b/backends/hostmem-memfd-private.c
>>> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ priv_memfd_backend_memory_alloc(HostMemoryBackend *backend, Error **errp)
>>>       MachineState *machine = MACHINE(qdev_get_machine());
>>>       uint32_t ram_flags;
>>>       char *name;
>>> -    int fd, priv_fd;
>>> +    int fd, priv_fd, ret;
>>>       if (!backend->size) {
>>>           error_setg(errp, "can't create backend with size 0");
>>> @@ -65,7 +65,15 @@ priv_memfd_backend_memory_alloc(HostMemoryBackend *backend, Error **errp)
>>>                                      backend->size, ram_flags, fd, 0, errp);
>>>       g_free(name);
>>> -    fallocate(priv_fd, 0, 0, backend->size);
>>> +again:
>>> +    ret = fallocate(priv_fd, 0, 0, backend->size);
>>> +    if (ret) {
>>> +           perror("Fallocate failed: \n");
>>> +           if (errno == EINTR)
>>> +                   goto again;
>>> +           else
>>> +                   exit(1);
>>> +    }
>>>
>>> However, fallocate() preallocates full guest memory before starting the guest.
>>> With this behaviour guest memory is *not* demand pinned. 

This is with reference to the SEV demand pinning patches that I was working on. 
The understanding was UPM will not reserve memory for SEV/TDX guest in the beginning 
similar to normal guest. Here is the relevant quote from the discussion with Sean[1]:

	"I think we should abandon this approach in favor of committing all our resources
	to fd-based private memory[*], which (if done right) will provide on-demand pinning
	for "free". "

>>> Is there a way to prevent fallocate() from reserving full guest memory?
Regards
Nikunj
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/YkIh8zM7XfhsFN8L@xxxxxxxxxx/