Re: [PATCH v3 10/12] KVM: SEV: Forcefully invalidate SNP VMSA if its backing gmem page is zapped

[Sean Christopherson]

On Wed, Jul 08, 2026, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2026, Ackerley Tng wrote:
> > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> > >
> > > [...snip...]
> > >
> > > @@ -1902,6 +1905,7 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops {
> > >  	void *(*alloc_apic_backing_page)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > >  	int (*gmem_prepare)(struct kvm *kvm, kvm_pfn_t pfn, gfn_t gfn, int max_order);
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_GMEM_INVALIDATE
> > > +	void (*gmem_invalidate_range)(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range);
> > >  	void (*gmem_reclaim_memory)(kvm_pfn_t start, kvm_pfn_t end);
> > >  #endif
> > 
> > I suggested CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_GMEM_RECLAIM_MEMORY before looking at
> > this patch.
> > 
> > Considering this, it seems like gmem_invalidate_range is a true
> > invalidation request and .gmem_reclaim_memory is too late for
> > invalidation as you explained in the commit message of the renaming
> > patch.
> > 
> > Perhaps the new .gmem_invalidate_range should take over
> > CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_GMEM_INVALIDATE, and .gmem_reclaim_memory should
> > use a new CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_GMEM_RECLAIM_MEMORY?
> > 
> > Are they both invalidations in your opinion?
> 
> No, definitely not, I just didn't want to add another Kconfig.  And I still don't,
> but I agree that lumping .gmem_reclaim_memory() into GMEM_INVALIDATE doesn't work,
> because the behavior of sev_gmem_reclaim_memory() and sev_gmem_invalidate_range()
> are completely unrelated.
> 
> > If we're clumping SNP configs together,
> > CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_GMEM_PREPARE is also only enabled by SNP...
> 
> Yeah, but while I don't like a Kconfig explosion, I don't really want to end up
> with CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_GMEM_SNP_HOOKS either.
> 
> Oh, wait, isn't CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_GMEM_PREPARE going away?  I was going to say
> we could bundle .prepare() and .reclaim() together, because conceptually they are
> two bookends for updating out-of-band metadata, but that doesn't make a whole lot
> of sense if .prepare() is going to disappear.

For consistency with .gmem_prepare(), what about going with .gmem_reclaim() instead
of .gmem_reclaim_memory()?  E.g.

#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_GMEM_RECLAIM
static void kvm_gmem_free_folio(struct folio *folio)
{
	struct page *page = folio_page(folio, 0);
	kvm_pfn_t pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
	int order = folio_order(folio);

	kvm_arch_gmem_reclaim(pfn, pfn + (1ul << order));
}
#endif