On 04/09/2012 04:55 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
> Okay, let's simplify it as possible:
>
> - let it only fix the page fault with PFEC.P == 1 && PFEC.W = 0, that means
> unlock set_spte path can be dropped
>
> - let it just fixes the page fault caused by dirty-log that means we always
> skip the spte which write-protected by shadow page protection.
>
> Then, things should be fair simper:
>
> In set_spte path, if the spte can be writable, we set ALLOW_WRITE bit
> In rmap_write_protect:
> if (spte.PT_WRITABLE_MASK) {
> WARN_ON(!(spte & ALLOW_WRITE));
> spte &= ~PT_WRITABLE_MASK;
> spte |= WRITE_PROTECT;
> }
>
> in fast page fault:
>
> if (spte & PT_WRITABLE_MASK)
> return_go_guest;
>
> if ((spte & ALLOW_WRITE) && !(spte & WRITE_PROTECT))
> cmpxchg spte + PT_WRITABLE_MASK
>
> The information all we needed comes from spte it is independence from other path,
> and no barriers.
>
>
> Hmm, how about this one?
>
I like it. WRITE_PROTECT is better than my ALLOW_WRITES, the meaning is
clearer.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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
