On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:09 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 5:49 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > -static void handle_changed_spte(struct kvm *kvm, int as_id, gfn_t gfn,
> > > - u64 old_spte, u64 new_spte, int level,
> > > - bool shared)
> > > -{
> > > - __handle_changed_spte(kvm, as_id, gfn, old_spte, new_spte, level,
> > > - shared);
> > > handle_changed_spte_acc_track(old_spte, new_spte, level);
> > > - handle_changed_spte_dirty_log(kvm, as_id, gfn, old_spte,
> > > - new_spte, level);
> > > +
> > > + /* COMMENT GOES HERE. */
> >
> > Current "shared" callers are not making a page dirty. If a new
> > "shared" caller makes a page dirty then make sure
> > handle_changed_spte_dirty_log is called.
> >
> > How is this?
>
> I was hoping for a more definitive "rule" than "KVM doesn't currently do XYZ".
>
> > > + if (!shared)
> > > + handle_changed_spte_dirty_log(kvm, as_id, gfn, old_spte,
> > > + new_spte, level);
> > > }
> > >
What if implementation is changed a little more? I can think of two options:
Option 1:
Remove handle_changed_spte_dirty_log() and let the callers handle
mark_page_dirty_in_slot(). Similar to how fast page faults do this.
This will get rid of the "shared" variable and defining its rules for
the shared and nonshared flow.
Option 2:
Changing meaning of this variable from "shared" to something like
"handle_dirty_log"
Callers will know if they want dirty log to be handled or not.
I am preferring option 1.
