Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1297387 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-23 12:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-12-24 10:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[PATCH v2 09/11] KVM: MMU: simplify mmu_need_write_protect Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-23 12:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] KVM: MMU: simplify mmu_need_write_protect Kai Huang <kai.huang@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-24 09:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] KVM: MMU: simplify mmu_need_write_protect Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-24 10:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] KVM: MMU: simplify mmu_need_write_protect Kai Huang <kai.huang@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-24 10:30 +0100
| From | Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-23 12:40 +0100 |
| Subject | [PATCH v2 09/11] KVM: MMU: simplify mmu_need_write_protect |
| Message-ID | <qIPVU-yO-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Now, all non-leaf shadow page are page tracked, if gfn is not tracked
there is no non-leaf shadow page of gfn is existed, we can directly
make the shadow page of gfn to unsync
Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 26 ++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
index 5a2ca73..f89e77f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -2461,41 +2461,31 @@ static void __kvm_unsync_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync(sp);
}
-static void kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn)
+static bool kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
+ bool can_unsync)
{
struct kvm_mmu_page *s;
for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, s, gfn) {
+ if (!can_unsync)
+ return true;
+
if (s->unsync)
continue;
WARN_ON(s->role.level != PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL);
__kvm_unsync_page(vcpu, s);
}
+
+ return false;
}
static bool mmu_need_write_protect(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
bool can_unsync)
{
- struct kvm_mmu_page *s;
- bool need_unsync = false;
-
if (kvm_page_track_check_mode(vcpu, gfn, KVM_PAGE_TRACK_WRITE))
return true;
- for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, s, gfn) {
- if (!can_unsync)
- return true;
-
- if (s->role.level != PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL)
- return true;
-
- if (!s->unsync)
- need_unsync = true;
- }
- if (need_unsync)
- kvm_unsync_pages(vcpu, gfn);
-
- return false;
+ return kvm_unsync_pages(vcpu, gfn, can_unsync);
}
static bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn)
--
1.8.3.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kai Huang <kai.huang@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 09:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qJ9KV-4un-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1297387 |
On 12/23/2015 07:25 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Now, all non-leaf shadow page are page tracked, if gfn is not tracked
> there is no non-leaf shadow page of gfn is existed, we can directly
> make the shadow page of gfn to unsync
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 26 ++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> index 5a2ca73..f89e77f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -2461,41 +2461,31 @@ static void __kvm_unsync_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
> kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync(sp);
> }
>
> -static void kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn)
> +static bool kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
> + bool can_unsync)
> {
> struct kvm_mmu_page *s;
>
> for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, s, gfn) {
> + if (!can_unsync)
> + return true;
> +
> if (s->unsync)
> continue;
> WARN_ON(s->role.level != PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL);
> __kvm_unsync_page(vcpu, s);
> }
> +
> + return false;
> }
I hate to say but it looks odd to me that kvm_unsync_pages takes a bool
parameter called can_unsync, and return a bool (which looks like
suggesting whether the unsync has succeeded or not). How about calling
__kvm_unsync_pages directly in mmu_need_write_protect, and leave
kvm_unsync_pages unchanged (or even remove it as looks it is used
nowhere else) ? But again it's to you and Paolo.
Thanks,
-Kai
>
> static bool mmu_need_write_protect(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
> bool can_unsync)
> {
> - struct kvm_mmu_page *s;
> - bool need_unsync = false;
> -
> if (kvm_page_track_check_mode(vcpu, gfn, KVM_PAGE_TRACK_WRITE))
> return true;
>
> - for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, s, gfn) {
> - if (!can_unsync)
> - return true;
> -
> - if (s->role.level != PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL)
> - return true;
> -
> - if (!s->unsync)
> - need_unsync = true;
> - }
> - if (need_unsync)
> - kvm_unsync_pages(vcpu, gfn);
> -
> - return false;
> + return kvm_unsync_pages(vcpu, gfn, can_unsync);
> }
>
> static bool kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn_t pfn)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 10:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qJadY-4TB-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1297783 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 12/24/2015 04:36 PM, Kai Huang wrote:
>
>
> On 12/23/2015 07:25 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> Now, all non-leaf shadow page are page tracked, if gfn is not tracked
>> there is no non-leaf shadow page of gfn is existed, we can directly
>> make the shadow page of gfn to unsync
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 26 ++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>> index 5a2ca73..f89e77f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>> @@ -2461,41 +2461,31 @@ static void __kvm_unsync_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>> kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync(sp);
>> }
>> -static void kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn)
>> +static bool kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
>> + bool can_unsync)
>> {
>> struct kvm_mmu_page *s;
>> for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, s, gfn) {
>> + if (!can_unsync)
>> + return true;
>> +
>> if (s->unsync)
>> continue;
>> WARN_ON(s->role.level != PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL);
>> __kvm_unsync_page(vcpu, s);
>> }
>> +
>> + return false;
>> }
> I hate to say but it looks odd to me that kvm_unsync_pages takes a bool parameter called can_unsync,
> and return a bool (which looks like suggesting whether the unsync has succeeded or not). How about
> calling __kvm_unsync_pages directly in mmu_need_write_protect, and leave kvm_unsync_pages unchanged
> (or even remove it as looks it is used nowhere else) ? But again it's to you and Paolo.
>
Make senses, the updated version is attached, count you review it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kai Huang <kai.huang@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-24 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qJanD-4WC-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1297788 |
On 12/24/2015 05:11 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
>
> On 12/24/2015 04:36 PM, Kai Huang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2015 07:25 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>> Now, all non-leaf shadow page are page tracked, if gfn is not tracked
>>> there is no non-leaf shadow page of gfn is existed, we can directly
>>> make the shadow page of gfn to unsync
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 26 ++++++++------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>>> index 5a2ca73..f89e77f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
>>> @@ -2461,41 +2461,31 @@ static void __kvm_unsync_page(struct
>>> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>>> kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync(sp);
>>> }
>>> -static void kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn)
>>> +static bool kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
>>> + bool can_unsync)
>>> {
>>> struct kvm_mmu_page *s;
>>> for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, s, gfn) {
>>> + if (!can_unsync)
>>> + return true;
>>> +
>>> if (s->unsync)
>>> continue;
>>> WARN_ON(s->role.level != PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL);
>>> __kvm_unsync_page(vcpu, s);
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + return false;
>>> }
>> I hate to say but it looks odd to me that kvm_unsync_pages takes a
>> bool parameter called can_unsync,
>> and return a bool (which looks like suggesting whether the unsync has
>> succeeded or not). How about
>> calling __kvm_unsync_pages directly in mmu_need_write_protect, and
>> leave kvm_unsync_pages unchanged
>> (or even remove it as looks it is used nowhere else) ? But again it's
>> to you and Paolo.
>>
>
> Make senses, the updated version is attached, count you review it?
Sure and it looks good to me.
Thanks,
-Kai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web