On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:59 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024, James Houghton wrote: > > Reorder the TDP MMU check to be first for both kvm_test_age_gfn and > > () on functions, i.e. kvm_test_age_gfn(). That said, even better would be to > avoid using the function names. Let the patch itself communicate which functions > are affected, and instead write the changelog as you would verbally communicate > the change. > > > kvm_age_gfn. For kvm_test_age_gfn, this allows us to completely avoid > > No "us" or "we". > > > > needing to grab the MMU lock when the TDP MMU reports that the page is > > young. > > The changelog should make it clear that the patch actually does this, i.e. that > there is a functional change beyond just changing the ordering. Ooh, and that > definitely needs to be captured in the shortlog. I would even go so far as to > say it should be the focal point of the shortlog. > > E.g. something like: > > KVM: x86/mmu: Skip shadow MMU test_young if TDP MMU reports page as young > > Reorder the processing of the TDP MMU versus the shadow MMU when aging > SPTEs, and skip the shadow MMU entirely in the test-only case if the TDP > MMU reports that the page is young, i.e. completely avoid taking mmu_lock > if the TDP MMU SPTE is young. Swap the order for the test-and-age helper > as well for consistency. Thanks, I think this is worded very clearly. Applied verbatim. Noted your tips for future changelogs.
