On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:32:39PM +0800, Nai Xia wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> index d48ec60..b407a69 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
>> @@ -4674,6 +4674,7 @@ static int __init vmx_init(void)
>> kvm_mmu_set_mask_ptes(0ull, 0ull, 0ull, 0ull,
>> VMX_EPT_EXECUTABLE_MASK);
>> kvm_enable_tdp();
>> + kvm_dirty_update = 0;
>> } else
>> kvm_disable_tdp();
>>
>
> Why not return !shadow_dirty_mask instead of adding a new var?
>
>> struct mmu_notifier_ops {
>> + int (*dirty_update)(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
>> + struct mm_struct *mm);
>> +
>
> Needs some docu.
OK. I'll add it.
>
> I think dirty_update isn't self explanatory name. I think
> "has_test_and_clear_dirty" would be better.
Agreed. So it will be the name in the next version. :)
Thanks,
Nai
>
> If we don't flush the smp tlb don't we risk that we'll insert pages in
> the unstable tree that are volatile just because the dirty bit didn't
> get set again on the spte?
>
> The first patch I guess it's a sign of hugetlbfs going a little over
> the edge in trying to mix with the core VM... Passing that parameter
> &need_pte_unmap all over the place not so nice, maybe it'd be possible
> to fix within hugetlbfs to use a different method to walk the hugetlb
> vmas. I'd prefer that if possible.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrea
>
--
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
