On Thu, Apr 01, 2021, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> Small refactoring that will be used in the next patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/kvm_cache_regs.h | 7 +++++++
> arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 6 ++----
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/kvm_cache_regs.h b/arch/x86/kvm/kvm_cache_regs.h
> index 2e11da2f5621..07d607947805 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/kvm_cache_regs.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/kvm_cache_regs.h
> @@ -55,6 +55,13 @@ static inline void kvm_register_mark_available(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> __set_bit(reg, (unsigned long *)&vcpu->arch.regs_avail);
> }
>
> +static inline void kvm_register_clear_available(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
I don't love the name, because it makes me think too hard about available vs.
dirty. :-) If we drop the optimizations, what if we also drop this patch to
avoid bikeshedding the name?
> + enum kvm_reg reg)
> +{
> + __clear_bit(reg, (unsigned long *)&vcpu->arch.regs_avail);
> + __clear_bit(reg, (unsigned long *)&vcpu->arch.regs_dirty);
> +}
> +
> static inline void kvm_register_mark_dirty(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> enum kvm_reg reg)
> {
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> index 271196400495..2843732299a2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> @@ -3880,10 +3880,8 @@ static __no_kcsan fastpath_t svm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> vcpu->arch.apf.host_apf_flags =
> kvm_read_and_reset_apf_flags();
>
> - if (npt_enabled) {
> - vcpu->arch.regs_avail &= ~(1 << VCPU_EXREG_PDPTR);
> - vcpu->arch.regs_dirty &= ~(1 << VCPU_EXREG_PDPTR);
> - }
> + if (npt_enabled)
> + kvm_register_clear_available(vcpu, VCPU_EXREG_PDPTR);
>
> /*
> * We need to handle MC intercepts here before the vcpu has a chance to
> --
> 2.26.2
>
