Re: [RFC PATCH v4 3/3] KVM: guest_memfd: Enforce NUMA mempolicy using shared policy

[Shivank Garg]

On 2/12/2025 4:09 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 10.02.25 07:32, Shivank Garg wrote:
>> Previously, guest-memfd allocations were following local NUMA node id
>> in absence of process mempolicy, resulting in random memory allocation.
>> Moreover, mbind() couldn't be used since memory wasn't mapped to userspace
>> in VMM.
>>
>> Enable NUMA policy support by implementing vm_ops for guest-memfd mmap
>> operation. This allows VMM to map the memory and use mbind() to set the
>> desired NUMA policy. The policy is then retrieved via
>> mpol_shared_policy_lookup() and passed to filemap_grab_folio_mpol() to
>> ensure that allocations follow the specified memory policy.
>>
>> This enables VMM to control guest memory NUMA placement by calling mbind()
>> on the mapped memory regions, providing fine-grained control over guest
>> memory allocation across NUMA nodes.
> 
> Yes, I think that is the right direction, especially with upcoming in-place conversion of shared<->private in mind.
> 
>>
>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>   virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
>> index b2aa6bf24d3a..e1ea8cb292fa 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/backing-dev.h>
>>   #include <linux/falloc.h>
>>   #include <linux/kvm_host.h>
>> +#include <linux/mempolicy.h>
>>   #include <linux/pagemap.h>
>>   #include <linux/anon_inodes.h>
>>   @@ -11,8 +12,13 @@ struct kvm_gmem {
>>       struct kvm *kvm;
>>       struct xarray bindings;
>>       struct list_head entry;
>> +    struct shared_policy policy;
>>   };
>>   +static struct mempolicy *kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy(struct kvm_gmem *gmem,
>> +                           pgoff_t index,
>> +                           pgoff_t *ilx);
>> +
>>   /**
>>    * folio_file_pfn - like folio_file_page, but return a pfn.
>>    * @folio: The folio which contains this index.
>> @@ -96,10 +102,20 @@ static int kvm_gmem_prepare_folio(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
>>    * Ignore accessed, referenced, and dirty flags.  The memory is
>>    * unevictable and there is no storage to write back to.
>>    */
>> -static struct folio *kvm_gmem_get_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index)
>> +static struct folio *kvm_gmem_get_folio(struct file *file, pgoff_t index)
> 
> I'd probably do that change in a separate prep-patch; would remove some of the unrelated noise in this patch.

Yes, I'll separate it.
> 
>>   {
>>       /* TODO: Support huge pages. */
>> -    return filemap_grab_folio(inode->i_mapping, index);
>> +    struct folio *folio = NULL;
> 
> No need to init folio.
> 
>> +    struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
>> +    struct kvm_gmem *gmem = file->private_data;
> 
> Prefer reverse christmas-tree (longest line first) as possible.
> 
>> +    struct mempolicy *policy;
>> +    pgoff_t ilx;
> 
> Why do you return the ilx from kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy() if it is completely unused?
> 
>> +
>> +    policy = kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy(gmem, index, &ilx);
>> +    folio =  filemap_grab_folio_mpol(inode->i_mapping, index, policy);
>> +    mpol_cond_put(policy);
> 

I'll remove the kvm_gmem_get_pgoff_policy.

> The downside is that we always have to lookup the policy, even if we don't have to allocate anything because the pagecache already contains a folio.
> 
> Would there be a way to lookup if there is something already allcoated (fast-path) and fallback to the slow-path (lookup policy+call filemap_grab_folio_mpol) only if that failed?
> 
> Note that shmem.c does exactly that: shmem_alloc_folio() is only called after filemap_get_entry() told us that there is nothing.
> 
Yes, It's doable.
A filemap_get_folio() for fast-path: If it does not return folio, then falling back to current slowpath.

>> +
>> +    return folio;
...

>> +}
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */
>>     static struct file_operations kvm_gmem_fops = {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
>> +    .mmap        = kvm_gmem_mmap,
>> +#endif
> 
> With Fuad's work, this will be unconditional, and you'd only set the kvm_gmem_vm_ops conditionally -- just like shmem.c. Maybe best to prepare for that already: allow unconditional mmap (Fuad will implement the faulting logic of shared pages, until then all accesses would SIGBUS I assume, did you try that?) and only mess with get_policy/set_policy.

Yes, I'll change according to it.
I have to try that out.

Thanks,
Shivank