On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:27 PM Edgecombe, Rick P <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't see benefit of x86_ops.max_gfn() compared to kvm->arch.max_gfn. > > But I don't have strong preference. Either way will work. > > The non-TDX VM's won't need per-VM data, right? So it's just unneeded extra > state per-vm. It's just a cached value like there are many in the MMU. It's easier for me to read code without the mental overhead of a function call. > For TDX it will be based on the shared bit, so we actually already have the per- > vm data we need. So we don't even need both gfn_shared_mask and max_gfn for TDX. But they are independent, for example AMD placed the encryption bit highest, then the reduced physical address space bits, then finally the rest of the gfn. I think it's consistent with the kvm_has_* approach, to not assume much and just store separate data. Paolo
