[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181106112243.6fabdb0f@brho.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 11:22:43 -0500
From: Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, zwisler@...nel.org,
Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
rkrcmar@...hat.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Zhang, Yu C" <yu.c.zhang@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Yi Z" <yi.z.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kvm: Use huge pages for DAX-backed files
On 2018-11-06 at 11:19 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> > void kvm_set_pfn_dirty(kvm_pfn_t pfn)
> > {
> > if (!kvm_is_reserved_pfn(pfn)) {
> > struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> >
> > if (!PageReserved(page))
> > SetPageDirty(page);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > I think we want to SetPageDirty for DAX, so making PageReserved be true
> > for DAX seems like the way to go, or we'll need more KVM-specific
> > changes. Apologies is this was discussed in the previous thread on this
> > topic and is redundant.
>
> Isn't it the opposite? We want SetPageDirty, so PageReserved must _not_
> be true.
You're right on that, I had it backwards. The other DAX work is making
it so that DAX pages are not reserved, so the only extra '!' was in my
head.
Thanks,
Barret
Powered by blists - more mailing lists