On Sun, Jun 05, 2022, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Make it as the opposite function of kvm_mmu_page_clear_unsync().
>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> index c20981dfc4fd..cc0207e26f6e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> @@ -2529,12 +2529,16 @@ static int kvm_mmu_unprotect_page_virt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t gva)
> return r;
> }
>
> -static void kvm_unsync_page(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
> +static void kvm_mmu_page_mark_unsync(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
The existing code is anything but consistent, but I think I prefer the pattern:
kvm_mmu_<action>_<target>_<flag>
I.e. kvm_mmu_mark_page_unsync() + kvm_mmu_unmark_page_unsync() to yield:
kvm_mmu_mark_page_unsync(kvm, sp);
kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync(sp);
so that at least this code will be consistent with itself.
> {
> trace_kvm_mmu_unsync_page(sp);
> ++kvm->stat.mmu_unsync;
> sp->unsync = 1;
> +}
>
> +static void kvm_unsync_page(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
Rather than keep kvm_unsync_page(), what about just open coding the calls in
mmu_try_to_unsync_pages()? I can't imagine we'll ever have a second caller.
There won't be a direct pair to kvm_sync_page(), but that's not necessarily a bad
thing since they are really direct opposites anyway.
> +{
> + kvm_mmu_page_mark_unsync(kvm, sp);
> kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync(sp);
> }
>
> --
> 2.19.1.6.gb485710b
>
