[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <edfadb98-b86e-6d03-bdfc-9025fac73dee@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 22:26:18 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Peter Shier <pshier@...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 1/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Track if shadow MMU active
On 04/05/21 21:55, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> But, I think we we can avoid bikeshedding by simply eliminating this flag. More
> in later patches.
Are you thinking of checking slot->arch.rmap[0] directly? That should
work indeed.
>> - kvm_mmu_init_tdp_mmu(kvm);
>> + if (!kvm_mmu_init_tdp_mmu(kvm))
>> + activate_shadow_mmu(kvm);
> Doesn't come into play yet, but I would strongly prefer to open code setting the
> necessary flag instead of relying on the helper to never fail.
>
You mean
kvm->arch.shadow_mmu_active = !kvm_mmu_init_tdp_mmu(kvm);
(which would assign to alloc_memslot_rmaps instead if shadow_mmu_active
is removed)? That makes sense.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists