Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> It would be better to rewrite kvm_mmu_zap_page() in terms of
> prepare/commit in the patch so we don't have two copies of the same
> thing (also easier to review).
OK, i'll do it in the next version.
>
>
>
>
>>> This is a good idea, but belongs in a separate patch? We can use it to
>>> reclaim invalid pages before allocating new ones.
>>>
>>>
>> This patch is very simple and kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page() function
>> should depend on
>> kvm->arch.invalid_mmu_pages, so i think we on need separate this
>> patch, your opinion? :-)
>>
>>
>
> How about passing the list as a parameter to prepare() and commit()? If
> the lifetime of the list is just prepare/commit, it shouldn't be a global.
>
Does below example code show your meaning correctly?
+ struct list_head free_list = LIST_HEAD_INIT(&free_list);
hlist_for_each_entry_safe(sp, node, nn, bucket, hash_link) {
if (sp->gfn == gfn && !sp->role.direct
&& !sp->role.invalid) {
pgprintk("%s: zap %lx %x\n",
__func__, gfn, sp->role.word);
+ kvm_mmu_prepare_zap_page(kvm, sp, &free_list);
}
}
+ kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page(kvm, &free_list);
Thanks,
Xiao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
