On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 3:42 AM Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Since both of maxphyaddr updating and virtual address width checking > need to query the cpuid leaf 0x80000008. We can put them together. > > Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c > index 67fa44ab87af..fd0a66079001 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c > @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ int kvm_update_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > best->ebx = xstate_required_size(vcpu->arch.xcr0, true); > > /* > + * Update physical address width and check virtual address width. > * The existing code assumes virtual address is 48-bit or 57-bit in the > * canonical address checks; exit if it is ever changed. > */ > @@ -127,7 +128,10 @@ int kvm_update_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > if (vaddr_bits != 48 && vaddr_bits != 57 && vaddr_bits != 0) > return -EINVAL; > + > + vcpu->arch.maxphyaddr = best->eax & 0xff; > } > + vcpu->arch.maxphyaddr = 36; Perhaps I'm missing something, but it looks to me like you always set vcpu->arch.maxphyaddr to 36, regardless of what may be enumerated by leaf 0x80000008. Is there really much of an advantage to open-coding cpuid_query_maxphyaddr() here? > best = kvm_find_cpuid_entry(vcpu, KVM_CPUID_FEATURES, 0); > if (kvm_hlt_in_guest(vcpu->kvm) && best && > @@ -144,8 +148,6 @@ int kvm_update_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > } > } > > - /* Update physical-address width */ > - vcpu->arch.maxphyaddr = cpuid_query_maxphyaddr(vcpu); > kvm_mmu_reset_context(vcpu); > > kvm_pmu_refresh(vcpu); > -- > 2.19.1 >
