On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 02:06:55PM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 1:37 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Yu, > > > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 02:13:07PM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote: > > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c > > > > index 3d61bd3e591d..bfbebdcb4ef0 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c > > > > @@ -1019,7 +1019,7 @@ static int stage2_unmap_walker(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx, > > > > kvm_granule_size(ctx->level)); > > > > > > > > if (childp) > > > > - mm_ops->put_page(childp); > > > > + mm_ops->free_removed_table(childp, ctx->level); > > > > > > Thanks, Oliver. > > > > > > A couple of things I haven't had the chance to verify -- I'm hoping > > > you could help clarify: > > > 1. For unmapping, with free_removed_table(), wouldn't we have to look > > > into the table we know it's empty unnecessarily? > > > > As it is currently implemented, yes. But, there's potential to fast-path > > the implementation by checking page_count() before starting the walk. > > Do you mind posting another patch? I'd be happy to ack it, as well as > the one you suggested above. I'd rather not take such a patch independent of the test_clear_young series if you're OK with that. Do you mind implementing something similar to the above patch w/ the proposed optimization if you need it? -- Thanks, Oliver
