On 11/23/24 03:06, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
On Fri, 2024-11-22 at 16:08 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 11/22/24 15:55, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024, Dave Hansen wrote:
I don't know the full context, but working with "struct page" is a pain when every
user just wants the physical address. KVM SVM had a few cases where pointers were
tracked as "struct page", and it was generally unpleasant to read and work with.
I'm not super convinced. page_to_phys(foo) is all it takes
I also don't like conflating the kernel's "struct page" with the architecture's
definition of a 4KiB page.
That's fair, although it's pervasively conflated across our entire
codebase. But 'struct page' is substantially better than a hpa_t,
phys_addr_t or u64 that can store a full 64-bits of address. Those
conflate a physical address with a physical page, which is *FAR* worse.
In the case of tdh_mem_page_aug(), etc the caller only has a kvm_pfn_t passed
from a TDP MMU callback, for the page to be mapped in the guest TD. It is
probably not nice to assume that this kvm_pfn_t will have a struct page. So we
shouldn't always use struct pages for the SEAMCALL wrappers in any case.
What if we just move these members from hpa_t to pfn_t? It keeps us off struct
page, but addresses some of Dave's concerns about hpa_t looking like a specific
address.
For tdr I agree with Dave that you probably want a struct which stores
the struct page*. Currently the code is using __get_free_page(), but
it's a small change to have it use alloc_page() instead, and
__free_page() instead of free_page().
The only difference on the arch/x86/virt/ side is a bunch of added
page_to_phys().
Anyhow, whatever you post I'll take care of adjusting in the KVM patches.
Paolo
