[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <07cf7833-c74a-9ae0-6895-d74708b97f68@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 10:08:05 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Skip !MMU-present SPTEs when removing SP in
exclusive mode
On 10/03/21 01:30, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> index 50ef757c5586..f0c99fa04ef2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> @@ -323,7 +323,18 @@ static void handle_removed_tdp_mmu_page(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *pt,
> cpu_relax();
> }
> } else {
> + /*
> + * If the SPTE is not MMU-present, there is no backing
> + * page associated with the SPTE and so no side effects
> + * that need to be recorded, and exclusive ownership of
> + * mmu_lock ensures the SPTE can't be made present.
> + * Note, zapping MMIO SPTEs is also unnecessary as they
> + * are guarded by the memslots generation, not by being
> + * unreachable.
> + */
> old_child_spte = READ_ONCE(*sptep);
> + if (!is_shadow_present_pte(old_child_spte))
> + continue;
>
> /*
> * Marking the SPTE as a removed SPTE is not
Ben, do you plan to make this path take mmu_lock for read? If so, this
wouldn't be too useful IIUC.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists