[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <567BB6B9.3000200@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 17:11:21 +0800
From: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com
Cc: gleb@...nel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jike.song@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] KVM: MMU: simplify mmu_need_write_protect
On 12/24/2015 04:36 PM, Kai Huang wrote:
>
>
> On 12/23/2015 07:25 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> Now, all non-leaf shadow page are page tracked, if gfn is not tracked
>> there is no non-leaf shadow page of gfn is existed, we can directly
>> make the shadow page of gfn to unsync
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 26 ++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>> index 5a2ca73..f89e77f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>> @@ -2461,41 +2461,31 @@ static void __kvm_unsync_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>> kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync(sp);
>> }
>> -static void kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn)
>> +static bool kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
>> + bool can_unsync)
>> {
>> struct kvm_mmu_page *s;
>> for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, s, gfn) {
>> + if (!can_unsync)
>> + return true;
>> +
>> if (s->unsync)
>> continue;
>> WARN_ON(s->role.level != PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL);
>> __kvm_unsync_page(vcpu, s);
>> }
>> +
>> + return false;
>> }
> I hate to say but it looks odd to me that kvm_unsync_pages takes a bool parameter called can_unsync,
> and return a bool (which looks like suggesting whether the unsync has succeeded or not). How about
> calling __kvm_unsync_pages directly in mmu_need_write_protect, and leave kvm_unsync_pages unchanged
> (or even remove it as looks it is used nowhere else) ? But again it's to you and Paolo.
>
Make senses, the updated version is attached, count you review it?
View attachment "0009-KVM-MMU-simplify-mmu_need_write_protect.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (2201 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists