On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 2:34 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/31/22 01:51, David Matlack wrote:
> >> -void kvm_mmu_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> >> +int kvm_mmu_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> >> {
> >> struct kvm_page_track_notifier_node *node = &kvm->arch.mmu_sp_tracker;
> >> + int r;
> >>
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kvm->arch.active_mmu_pages);
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kvm->arch.zapped_obsolete_pages);
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kvm->arch.lpage_disallowed_mmu_pages);
> >
> > I agree with moving these but that should probably be done in a separate
> > commit.
>
> Ok.
>
> >> - kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_zap_wq =
> >> - alloc_workqueue("kvm", WQ_UNBOUND|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM|WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE, 0);
> >> -
> >> - return true;
> >> + kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_zap_wq = wq;
> >
> > Suggest moving this to just after checking the return value of
> > alloc_workqueue().
>
> This is intentional, in case we have other future allocations, to avoid
> having to NULL out the field in the unwind path. It's a matter of taste
> I guess.
Oh ok, that makes sense. I agree it's a matter of taste.
>
> >> + return 1;
> >
> > Perhaps return 0 until we have a reason to differentiate the 2 cases.
>
> Yeah, though I wanted to preserve the previous behavior.
>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >> index fe2171b11441..89b6efb7f504 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >> @@ -11629,12 +11629,13 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
> >>
> >> ret = kvm_page_track_init(kvm);
> >> if (ret)
> >> - return ret;
> >> + goto out;
> >
> > nit: This goto is unnecessary.
>
> True, but I prefer to be consistent in using "goto" so that any future
> additions are careful about preserving the chain.
Sounds good.
>
> Paolo
>
