On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 01:40:16AM +0800, David Matlack wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 05:29:23PM +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote: > > Only SP with PG_LEVLE_4K level could be unsync, so the size of gfn range > > must be 1. > > > > Signed-off-by: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h > > index 04149c704d5b..486a3163b1e4 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/paging_tmpl.h > > @@ -937,7 +937,8 @@ static void FNAME(invlpg)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t gva, hpa_t root_hpa) > > > > mmu_page_zap_pte(vcpu->kvm, sp, sptep, NULL); > > if (is_shadow_present_pte(old_spte)) > > - kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_sptep(vcpu->kvm, sptep); > > + kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_gfn(vcpu->kvm, > > + kvm_mmu_page_get_gfn(sp, sptep - sp->spt), 1); > > The third argument to kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_gfn() is the level, not the > number of pages. But that aside, I don't understand why this patch is > necessary. kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_sptep() should already do the right > thing. > Since only SP with PG_LEVEL_4K level could be unsync, so the level must be PG_LEVEL_4K, then sp->role.level access could be dropped. However, I'm not sure whether it is useful. I can drop it if it is useless. > > > > if (!rmap_can_add(vcpu)) > > break; > > -- > > 2.31.1 > >
