Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] KVM: Dirty page logging for guest_memfd-only memslots
Alexandru Elisei <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.kvm,dev.linux.lists.kvmarm,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <an9BmCMFP2iok-0t@raptor> |
Hi, On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 09:04:46AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2026, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 06:03:54AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > That would be in contrast to user space having to guess that page migration on > > > > the current hardware with the current guest_memfd implementation does not > > > > support page migration, to then disable exactly that. > > > > If guest_memfd picks up support for another feature that might lead to > > memory being unmapped from stage 2 without userspace initiating it, would > > you be ok with that feature being gated by another guest_memfd flag? > > Yes, absolutely. FWIW, if I get my way and reclaim is driven by userspace, then > hopefully such a feature never comes along. But if guest_memfd does gain some > feature that triggers invalidations, then yeah, at the very least it would need > to have some knowledge of whether or not the associated VM supports said feature. > > > I get the feeling we're all on the same page, that guest_memfd will support > > a mode where memory isn't unmapped from stage 2, and right now the > > discussion is more about how that will be implemented. > > Ya. That's great, thanks for confirming. Alex