[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <39751a29-3a47-a108-f626-8abf0008ea09@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 19:30:50 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@...il.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 23/28] KVM: x86/mmu: Allow parallel page faults for the
TDP MMU
On 03/02/21 18:46, Ben Gardon wrote:
> enum kvm_mmu_lock_mode lock_mode =
> get_mmu_lock_mode_for_root(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->arch.mmu->root_hpa);
> ....
> kvm_mmu_lock_for_mode(lock_mode);
>
> Not sure if either of those are actually clearer, but the latter
> trends in the direction the RCF took, having an enum to capture
> read/write and whether or not yo yield in a lock mode parameter.
Could be a possibility. Also:
enum kvm_mmu_lock_mode lock_mode =
kvm_mmu_lock_for_root(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->arch.mmu->root_hpa);
kvm_mmu_unlock(vcpu->kvm, lock_mode);
Anyway it can be done on top.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists