On Tue, Jul 30, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> An interesting evolution of the API could be to pass a struct kvm_follow_pfn
> pointer to {,__}kvm_faultin_pfn() and __gfn_to_page() (the "constructors");
> and on the other side to kvm_release_faultin_page() and
> kvm_release_page_*(). The struct kvm_follow_pfn could be embedded in the
> (x86) kvm_page_fault and (generic) kvm_host_map structs. But certainly not
> as part of this already huge work.
For kvm_faultin_pfn(), my hope/dream is to make kvm_page_fault a common struct,
with an arch member (a la kvm_vcpu), and get to something like:
static int arch_page_fault_handler(...)
{
struct kvm_page_fault fault = {
<const common stuff>,
.arch.xxx = <arch stuff>,
};
<arch code>
r = kvm_faultin_pfn();
...
}
In theory, that would allow moving the kvm->mmu_invalidate_seq handling, memslot
lookup, etc. into kvm_faultin_pfn(), or maybe another helper that is invoked to
setup the fault structure. I.e. it would give us a way to drive convergence for
at least some of the fault handling logic, without having to tackle gory arch
details, at least not right away.
