On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 8:02 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, May 16, 2022, David Matlack wrote: > > Refactor kvm_mmu_alloc_shadow_page() to receive the caches from which it > > will allocate the various pieces of memory for shadow pages as a > > parameter, rather than deriving them from the vcpu pointer. This will be > > useful in a future commit where shadow pages are allocated during VM > > ioctls for eager page splitting, and thus will use a different set of > > caches. > > > > Preemptively pull the caches out all the way to > > kvm_mmu_get_shadow_page() since eager page splitting will not be calling > > Uber nit, "eager hugepage splitting" to provide a mental cue/reminder for why > those pages are direct. I think it may be too late to move away from the term "eager page splitting" (it is already in commit messages and the module param is called "eager_page_split"). Using a slightly different name here might produce more confusion, or at least cause readers to do a double-take. But naming aside, I don't follow what you mean here. i.e. What does the fact that page splitting uses direct shadow pages have to do with this patch? > > > kvm_mmu_alloc_shadow_page() directly. > > > > No functional change intended. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Reviewed-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
