[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220620140941.GB2016793@chaop.bj.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 22:09:41 +0800
From: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
qemu-devel@...gnu.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
"Maciej S . Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
luto@...nel.org, jun.nakajima@...el.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, david@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
ddutile@...hat.com, dhildenb@...hat.com,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, mhocko@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] KVM: Extend the memslot to support fd-based
private memory
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 09:27:25PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -110,6 +133,7 @@ struct kvm_userspace_memory_region {
> > > */
> > > #define KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES (1UL << 0)
> > > #define KVM_MEM_READONLY (1UL << 1)
> > > +#define KVM_MEM_PRIVATE (1UL << 2)
> >
> > Hmm, KVM_MEM_PRIVATE is technically wrong now that a "private" memslot maps private
> > and/or shared memory. Strictly speaking, we don't actually need a new flag. Valid
> > file descriptors must be >=0, so the logic for specifying a memslot that can be
> > converted between private and shared could be that "(int)private_fd < 0" means
> > "not convertible", i.e. derive the flag from private_fd.
> >
> > And looking at the two KVM consumers of the flag, via kvm_slot_is_private(), they're
> > both wrong. Both kvm_faultin_pfn() and kvm_mmu_max_mapping_level() should operate
> > on the _fault_, not the slot. So it would actually be a positive to not have an easy
> > way to query if a slot supports conversion.
>
> I take that back, the usage in kvm_faultin_pfn() is correct, but the names ends
> up being confusing because it suggests that it always faults in a private pfn.
Make sense, will change the naming, thanks.
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index b6d75016e48c..e1008f00609d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -4045,7 +4045,7 @@ static int kvm_faultin_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault)
> return RET_PF_EMULATE;
> }
>
> - if (fault->is_private) {
> + if (kvm_slot_can_be_private(slot)) {
> r = kvm_faultin_pfn_private(vcpu, fault);
> if (r != RET_PF_CONTINUE)
> return r == RET_PF_FIXED ? RET_PF_CONTINUE : r;
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> index 31f704c83099..c5126190fb71 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> @@ -583,9 +583,9 @@ struct kvm_memory_slot {
> struct kvm *kvm;
> };
>
> -static inline bool kvm_slot_is_private(const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
> +static inline bool kvm_slot_can_be_private(const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
> {
> - return slot && (slot->flags & KVM_MEM_PRIVATE);
> + return slot && !!slot->private_file;
> }
>
> static inline bool kvm_slot_dirty_track_enabled(const struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists