On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 11:28 AM Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > No need to check all of the conditions in __handle_changed_spte(). Aging > a gfn range implies resetting access bit or marking spte for access > tracking. > > Use atomic operation to only reset those bits. This avoids checking many > conditions in __handle_changed_spte() API. Also, clean up code by > removing dead code and API parameters. > > Signed-off-by: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 68 ++++++++++++++------------------------ > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c > index 83f15052aa6c..18630a06fa1f 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c > @@ -697,7 +697,7 @@ static inline int tdp_mmu_zap_spte_atomic(struct kvm *kvm, > > > /* > - * __tdp_mmu_set_spte - Set a TDP MMU SPTE and handle the associated bookkeeping > + * _tdp_mmu_set_spte - Set a TDP MMU SPTE and handle the associated bookkeeping Nit: Not sure how we got to the point of having a single and double underscore of the function, but what do you think about just calling this one tdp_mmu_set_spte and the other tdp_mmu_iter_set_spte?
