[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2c4ae90-1e60-23ed-4bda-24cf88db04c9@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 13:39:53 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: 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 02/02/21 19:57, Ben Gardon wrote:
>
> - write_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> +
> + if (is_tdp_mmu_root(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->arch.mmu->root_hpa))
> + read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> + else
> + write_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> +
I'd like to make this into two helper functions, but I'm not sure about
the naming:
- kvm_mmu_read_lock_for_root/kvm_mmu_read_unlock_for_root: not precise
because it's really write-locked for shadow MMU roots
- kvm_mmu_lock_for_root/kvm_mmu_unlock_for_root: not clear that TDP MMU
operations will need to operate in shared-lock mode
I prefer the first because at least it's the conservative option, but
I'm open to other opinions and suggestions.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists