On Thu, 2022-12-22 at 18:15 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022, Chao Peng wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 08:33:05AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote: > > > On Tue, 2022-12-20 at 15:22 +0800, Chao Peng wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 08:48:10AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2022-12-19 at 15:53 +0800, Chao Peng wrote: > > > But for non-restricted-mem case, it is correct for KVM to decrease page's > > > refcount after setting up mapping in the secondary mmu, otherwise the > > > page will > > > be pinned by KVM for normal VM (since KVM uses GUP to get the page). > > > > That's true. Actually even true for restrictedmem case, most likely we > > will still need the kvm_release_pfn_clean() for KVM generic code. On one > > side, other restrictedmem users like pKVM may not require page pinning > > at all. On the other side, see below. > > > > > > > > So what we are expecting is: for KVM if the page comes from restricted > > > mem, then > > > KVM cannot decrease the refcount, otherwise for normal page via GUP KVM > > > should. > > No, requiring the user (KVM) to guard against lack of support for page > migration > in restricted mem is a terrible API. It's totally fine for restricted mem to > not > support page migration until there's a use case, but punting the problem to > KVM > is not acceptable. Restricted mem itself doesn't yet support page migration, > e.g. explosions would occur even if KVM wanted to allow migration since there > is > no notification to invalidate existing mappings. > >
Yes totally agree (I also replied separately).
