On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:09 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 25/09/20 23:22, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > + for_each_tdp_pte_root(iter, root, start, end) {
> > + if (!is_shadow_present_pte(iter.old_spte) ||
> > + is_last_spte(iter.old_spte, iter.level))
> > + continue;
> > +
>
> I'm starting to wonder if another iterator like
> for_each_tdp_leaf_pte_root would be clearer, since this idiom repeats
> itself quite often. The tdp_iter_next_leaf function would be easily
> implemented as
>
> while (likely(iter->valid) &&
> (!is_shadow_present_pte(iter.old_spte) ||
> is_last_spte(iter.old_spte, iter.level))
> tdp_iter_next(iter);
Do you see a substantial efficiency difference between adding a
tdp_iter_next_leaf and building on for_each_tdp_pte_using_root with
something like:
#define for_each_tdp_leaf_pte_using_root(_iter, _root, _start, _end) \
for_each_tdp_pte_using_root(_iter, _root, _start, _end) \
if (!is_shadow_present_pte(_iter.old_spte) || \
!is_last_spte(_iter.old_spte, _iter.level)) \
continue; \
else
I agree that putting those checks in a wrapper makes the code more concise.
>
> Paolo
>
