Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/8] KVM: arm/arm64: Introduce helpers to manipulate
 page table entries
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc:     marc.zyngier@arm.com, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, punitagrawal@gmail.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
References: <20181031175745.18650-1-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
 <20181031175745.18650-4-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
 <396402d5-fddf-ab72-01c4-80dd1a0d4d44@arm.com>
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Message-ID: <a57e690e-0b93-faf4-9d90-9ba0cc388936@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 14:03:11 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <396402d5-fddf-ab72-01c4-80dd1a0d4d44@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Anshuman,

On 03/12/2018 13:50, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/31/2018 11:27 PM, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>> Introduce helpers to abstract architectural handling of the conversion
>> of pfn to page table entries and marking a PMD page table entry as a
>> block entry.
> 
> Why is this necessary ? we would still need to access PMD, PUD as is
> without any conversion. IOW KVM knows the breakdown of the page table
> at various levels. Is this something required from generic KVM code ?

The KVM MMU code is shared for arm32 and arm64. Hence we need arch specific
helpers to hide how we deal with the levels. e.g, PUD never exists for
arm32.

>    
>>
>> The helpers are introduced in preparation for supporting PUD hugepages
>> at stage 2 - which are supported on arm64 but do not exist on arm.
> 
> Some of these patches (including the earlier two) are good on it's
> own. Do we have still mention in commit message about the incoming PUD
> enablement as the reason for these cleanup patches ?
> 

Cheers
Suzuki