On 2015/11/26 1:32, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 20/11/2015 09:57, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
You can move this patch to the front of
[PATCH 08/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Use for_each_rmap_spte macro instead of
pte_list_walk()
By moving kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync() to the behind of mmu_spte_set()
(then the parent
spte is present now), you can directly clean up for_each_rmap_spte().
So basically squash together the two patches (8/10 and 9/10) except the
change to kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync; then in the second patch switch
from pte_list_walk to for_each_rmap_spte.
That makes sense indeed.
Sorry for my being late to respond to Xiao's suggestions. I could not
use my development machine for a while this week.
In short, this kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync() call in kvm_mmu_get_page()
should have been mark_unsync() for the new parent_pte only, because we
are constructing the mappings from/to it and other parents in the
sp->parent_ptes are not related to this fault?
As the code has been this way for some time, a bit scary to change it,
but I'll do some tests without that extra kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync()
with a guest (with ept=0) this afternoon.
Takuya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
