On 24/07/2018 10:17, Tianyu Lan wrote:
> mmu_set_spte() flushes remote tlbs for drop_parent_pte/drop_spte()
> and set_spte() separately. This may introduce redundant flush. This
> patch is to combine these flushes and check flush request after
> calling set_spte().
>
> Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <Tianyu.Lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Looks good, but I'd like a second opinion. Guangrong, Junaid, can you
review this?
Thanks,
Paolo
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> index 22a7984..8f21632 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -2901,6 +2901,7 @@ static int mmu_set_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep, unsigned pte_access,
> int rmap_count;
> int set_spte_ret;
> int ret = RET_PF_RETRY;
> + bool flush = false;
>
> pgprintk("%s: spte %llx write_fault %d gfn %llx\n", __func__,
> *sptep, write_fault, gfn);
> @@ -2917,12 +2918,12 @@ static int mmu_set_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep, unsigned pte_access,
>
> child = page_header(pte & PT64_BASE_ADDR_MASK);
> drop_parent_pte(child, sptep);
> - kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
> + flush = true;
> } else if (pfn != spte_to_pfn(*sptep)) {
> pgprintk("hfn old %llx new %llx\n",
> spte_to_pfn(*sptep), pfn);
> drop_spte(vcpu->kvm, sptep);
> - kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
> + flush = true;
> } else
> was_rmapped = 1;
> }
> @@ -2934,7 +2935,7 @@ static int mmu_set_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep, unsigned pte_access,
> ret = RET_PF_EMULATE;
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH, vcpu);
> }
> - if (set_spte_ret & SET_SPTE_NEED_REMOTE_TLB_FLUSH)
> + if (set_spte_ret & SET_SPTE_NEED_REMOTE_TLB_FLUSH || flush)
> kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
>
> if (unlikely(is_mmio_spte(*sptep)))
>
