On Wed, Nov 01, 2023, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 2:41 PM Sean Christopherson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Nov 01, 2023, Xiaoyao Li wrote:

quoted

On 10/31/2023 10:16 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, Xiaoyao Li wrote:

quoted

On 10/28/2023 2:21 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:

But it's different than MADV_HUGEPAGE, in a way. Per my understanding, the
failure of MADV_HUGEPAGE is not fatal, user space can ignore it and
continue.

However, the failure of KVM_GUEST_MEMFD_ALLOW_HUGEPAGE is fatal, which leads
to failure of guest memfd creation.

Failing KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD isn't truly fatal, it just requires different
action from userspace, i.e. instead of ignoring the error, userspace could redo
KVM_CREATE_GUEST_MEMFD with KVM_GUEST_MEMFD_ALLOW_HUGEPAGE=0.

We could make the behavior more like MADV_HUGEPAGE, e.g. theoretically we could
extend fadvise() with FADV_HUGEPAGE, or add a guest_memfd knob/ioctl() to let
userspace provide advice/hints after creating a guest_memfd.  But I suspect that
guest_memfd would be the only user of FADV_HUGEPAGE, and IMO a post-creation hint
is actually less desirable.

KVM_GUEST_MEMFD_ALLOW_HUGEPAGE will fail only if userspace didn't provide a
compatible size or the kernel doesn't support THP.  An incompatible size is likely
a userspace bug, and for most setups that want to utilize guest_memfd, lack of THP
support is likely a configuration bug.  I.e. many/most uses *want* failures due to
KVM_GUEST_MEMFD_ALLOW_HUGEPAGE to be fatal.

quoted

For current implementation, I think maybe KVM_GUEST_MEMFD_DESIRE_HUGEPAGE
fits better than KVM_GUEST_MEMFD_ALLOW_HUGEPAGE? or maybe *PREFER*?

Why?  Verbs like "prefer" and "desire" aren't a good fit IMO because they suggest
the flag is a hint, and hints are usually best effort only, i.e. are ignored if
there is a fundamental incompatibility.

"Allow" isn't perfect, e.g. I would much prefer a straight KVM_GUEST_MEMFD_USE_HUGEPAGES
or KVM_GUEST_MEMFD_HUGEPAGES flag, but I wanted the name to convey that KVM doesn't
(yet) guarantee hugepages.  I.e. KVM_GUEST_MEMFD_ALLOW_HUGEPAGE is stronger than
a hint, but weaker than a requirement.  And if/when KVM supports a dedicated memory
pool of some kind, then we can add KVM_GUEST_MEMFD_REQUIRE_HUGEPAGE.

I think that the current patch is fine, but I will adjust it to always
allow the flag, and to make the size check even if !CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE.
If hugepages are not guaranteed, and (theoretically) you could have no
hugepage at all in the result, it's okay to get this result even if THP is not
available in the kernel.

Can you post a fixup patch?  It's not clear to me exactly what behavior you intend
to end up with.