On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:49:49PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 09:49:59AM -0700, James Houghton wrote:
> > > I think consolidating the callbacks is cleanest, like you had it in
> > > v2. I really wasn't sure about this change honestly, but it was my
> > > attempt to incorporate feedback like this[3] from v4. I'll consolidate
> > > the callbacks like you had in v2.
> >
> > My strong preference is to have the callers expectations of the
> > secondary MMU be explicit. Having ->${BLAH}_fast_only() makes this
> > abundantly clear both at the callsite and in the implementation.
>
> Partially agreed. We don't need a dedicated mmu_notifier API to achieve that
> for the callsites, e.g. ptep_clear_young_notify() passes fast_only=false, and a
> new ptep_clear_young_notify_fast_only() does the obvious.
>
> On the back end, odds are very good KVM is going to squish the "fast" and "slow"
> paths back into a common helper, so IMO having dedicated fast_only() APIs for the
> mmu_notifier hooks doesn't add much value in the end.
>
> I'm not opposed to dedicated hooks, but I after poking around a bit, I suspect
> that passing a fast_only flag will end up being less cleaner for all parties.
Yeah, I think I'm headed in the same direction after actually reading
the MM side of this, heh.
--
Thanks,
Oliver
