[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d272613e-aed9-4cbc-26dd-78bc8fca2650@collabora.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 12:53:22 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>
To: David Stevens <stevensd@...omium.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>,
Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@...il.com>, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 6/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Handle non-refcounted pages
On 9/11/23 05:16, David Stevens wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h
> @@ -848,7 +848,8 @@ static int FNAME(page_fault)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault
>
> out_unlock:
> write_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> - kvm_release_pfn_clean(fault->pfn);
> + if (fault->is_refcounted_page)
> + kvm_set_page_accessed(pfn_to_page(fault->pfn));
The other similar occurrences in the code that replaced
kvm_release_pfn_clean() with kvm_set_page_accessed() did it under the
held mmu_lock.
Does kvm_set_page_accessed() needs to be invoked under the lock?
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists