[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230227220005.GO4175971@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:00:05 -0800
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>,
"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
"dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 050/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Ignore unsupported mmu
operation on private GFNs
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 02:40:46AM +0000,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 08:31 -0800, isaku.yamahata@...el.com wrote:
> > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
> >
> > Some KVM MMU operations (dirty page logging, page migration, aging page)
> > aren't supported for private GFNs (yet) with the first generation of TDX.
> > Silently return on unsupported TDX KVM MMU operations.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
>
>
> You already have previous patches to do similar things:
>
> [PATCH v11 034/113] KVM: x86/mmu: Disallow fast page fault on private GPA
> [PATCH v11 043/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Don't zap private pages for unsupported
> cases
> [PATCH v11 048/113] KVM: x86/mmu: Disallow dirty logging for x86 TDX
> [PATCH v11 049/113] KVM: x86/mmu: TDX: Do not enable page track for TD guest
>
> Now you have this patch:
>
> [PATCH v11 050/113] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Ignore unsupported mmu operation on
> private GFNs
>
> They are very confusing to me. Those previous patches are all "unsupported
> operations", correct?
>
> For instance, this patch says "dirty page logging isn't supported for private
> GFNs" (and why there's a 'yet' after it?), so based on the patch title my
> understanding is you are going to _ignore_ "dirty page logging". But you
> already have a previous patch to "Disallow dirty logging for x86 TDX".
>
> Shouldn't the two be in the same patch? Or you were trying to highlight the
> different between "x86/mmu" and "x86/tdp_mmu"?
>
> Please try to make the whole thing more clear. My first glance is, if it was
> me, I would probably have _ONE_ dedicated patch for _EACH_ unsupported
> operation, and make it very clear in the patch title. But you may have your own
> way to make things more clearer.
Agreed, merged this patch into [PATCH v11 048/113] KVM: x86/mmu: Disallow dirty
logging for x86 TDX.
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists