Re: [RFC PATCH V3 2/4] KVM: X86: Introduce role.glevel for level expanded pagetable

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 4/13/22 16:42, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 4/12/22 23:31, Sean Christopherson wrote:
We don't need 4 bits for this.  Crossing our fingers that we never had to shadow
a 2-level guest with a 6-level host, we can do:

		unsigned passthrough_delta:2;

Basically, your passthrough_delta is level - glevel in Jiangshan's patches.
You'll need 3 bits anyway when we remove direct later (that would be
passthrough_delta == level).

Are we planning on removing direct?

I think so, it's redundant and the code almost always checks direct||passthrough (which would be passthrough_delta > 0 with your scheme).

Regarding the naming:

* If we keep Jiangshan's logic, I don't like the glevel name very much, any
of mapping_level, target_level or direct_level would be clearer?

I don't love any of these names, especially glevel, because the field doesn't
strictly track the guest/mapping/target/direct level.  That could obviously be
remedied by making it valid at all times, but then the role would truly need 3
bits (on top of direct) to track 5-level guest paging.

Yes, it would need 3 bits but direct can be removed.

* If we go with yours, I would call the field "passthrough_levels".

Hmm, it's not a raw level though.

Hence the plural. :)

Paolo




[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux