On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 10:31 +0800, Zhao, Yan Y wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 10:42:13AM +0800, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree shadow_memtype_mask is the right value to check but it's indeed
> > > internal to kvm mmu.
> > > Including "mmu/spte.h" will further include "mmu/mmu_internal.h"
> > >
> > > What about introduce kvm_mmu_memtye_effective() instead as below?
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > +bool kvm_mmu_memtye_effective(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > +{
> > > + return shadow_memtype_mask;
> > > +}
> >
> > I don't think it's a good name. shadow_memtype_mask doesn't mean any actual
> > effective memtype, but just represent those bits that KVM can manipulate to get
> > an effective memtype for the guest access.
> >
> > Instead, it should represent the hardware capability to be able to emulate
> > guest's MTRR independent from host's MTRR. So, perhaps something like:
> >
> > bool kvm_mmu_guest_mtrr_emulatable();
>
> What about kvm_mmu_cap_effective_guest_mtrr()?
> Guest MTRR is always emulated with vMTRR.
Fine to me, but again it's better if Sean can provide input.
>
> >
> > It's better if Sean can provide input here.
> >
> > (Btw, off this topic, I think it's even more reasonable to make
> > shadow_memtype_mask only be meaningful when tdp_enabled is true, because the
> > capability to override host MTRR and emulate guest MTRR should be only available
> > when secondary MMU is turned on).
> >
