On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:14:07PM +0000,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-05-14 at 17:59 -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > +static void handle_removed_private_spte(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn,
> > + u64 old_spte, u64 new_spte,
> > + int level)
> > +{
> > + bool was_present = is_shadow_present_pte(old_spte);
> > + bool was_leaf = was_present && is_last_spte(old_spte, level);
> > + kvm_pfn_t old_pfn = spte_to_pfn(old_spte);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Allow only leaf page to be zapped. Reclaim non-leaf page tables
> > page
> > + * at destroying VM.
> > + */
> > + if (!was_leaf)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /* Zapping leaf spte is allowed only when write lock is held. */
> > + lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > + ret = static_call(kvm_x86_zap_private_spte)(kvm, gfn, level);
> > + /* Because write lock is held, operation should success. */
> > + if (KVM_BUG_ON(ret, kvm))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + ret = static_call(kvm_x86_remove_private_spte)(kvm, gfn, level,
> > old_pfn);
>
> I don't see why these (zap_private_spte and remove_private_spte) can't be a
> single op. Was it to prepare for huge pages support or something? In the base
> series they are both only called once.
That is for large page support. The step to merge or split large page is
1. zap_private_spte()
2. tlb shoot down
3. merge/split_private_spte()
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
