[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8c4ee32de5016f7ebeaa76fcff7c70887024c34b.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:46:17 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Yamahata, Isaku"
<isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
CC: "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "Huang, Kai"
<kai.huang@...el.com>, "federico.parola@...ito.it"
<federico.parola@...ito.it>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "isaku.yamahata@...il.com"
<isaku.yamahata@...il.com>, "dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
"michael.roth@....com" <michael.roth@....com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/10] KVM: x86/mmu: Introduce kvm_tdp_map_page() to
populate guest memory
On Wed, 2024-04-10 at 15:07 -0700, isaku.yamahata@...el.com wrote:
>
> +int kvm_tdp_map_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gpa_t gpa, u64 error_code,
> + u8 *level)
> +{
> + int r;
> +
> + /* Restrict to TDP page fault. */
> + if (vcpu->arch.mmu->page_fault != kvm_tdp_page_fault)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + r = __kvm_mmu_do_page_fault(vcpu, gpa, error_code, false, NULL,
> level);
Why not prefetch = true? Doesn't it fit? It looks like the behavior will be to
not set the access bit.
> + if (r < 0)
> + return r;
> +
> + switch (r) {
> + case RET_PF_RETRY:
> + return -EAGAIN;
> +
> + case RET_PF_FIXED:
> + case RET_PF_SPURIOUS:
> + return 0;
> +
> + case RET_PF_EMULATE:
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + case RET_PF_CONTINUE:
> + case RET_PF_INVALID:
> + default:
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(r);
> + return -EIO;
> + }
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists