On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 3:57 PM David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:28:20AM -0800, Vipin Sharma 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. > > Suggest splitting out the dead code cleanup to make it easier to review. > Sounds good. > > > > 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 > > @@ -1251,32 +1228,37 @@ static __always_inline bool kvm_tdp_mmu_handle_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, > > /* > > * Mark the SPTEs range of GFNs [start, end) unaccessed and return non-zero > > * if any of the GFNs in the range have been accessed. > > + * > > + * No need to mark corresponding PFN as accessed as this call is coming from > > + * MMU notifier for that page via HVA. > > Thanks for adding this comment. > > Can you just extend it to mention that the information is passed via the > return value? e.g. > > * No need to mark corresponding PFN as accessed as this call is coming > * from the clear_young() or clear_flush_young() notifier, which uses > * the return value to determine if the page has been accessed. > Sure.
