Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200925212302.3979661-1-bgardon@google.com> <20200925212302.3979661-11-bgardon@google.com>
 <20200930163740.GD32672@linux.intel.com> <b123d506-fa33-db3f-1166-4b0ec1d6dc1e@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <b123d506-fa33-db3f-1166-4b0ec1d6dc1e@redhat.com>
From:   Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 15:35:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CANgfPd9LmFfZisR3oXKZ7xSeTRi7GyDr+VWf0dE9U4y6_icmTA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/22] kvm: mmu: Add TDP MMU PF handler
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cannon Matthews <cannonmatthews@google.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
        Peter Feiner <pfeiner@google.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 30/09/20 18:37, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >> +    ret = page_fault_handle_target_level(vcpu, write, map_writable,
> >> +                                         as_id, &iter, pfn, prefault);
> >> +
> >> +    /* If emulating, flush this vcpu's TLB. */
> > Why?  It's obvious _what_ the code is doing, the comment should explain _why_.
> >
> >> +    if (ret == RET_PF_EMULATE)
> >> +            kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH, vcpu);
> >> +
> >> +    return ret;
> >> +}
>
> In particular it seems to be only needed in this case...
>
> +       /*
> +        * If the page fault was caused by a write but the page is write
> +        * protected, emulation is needed. If the emulation was skipped,
> +        * the vCPU would have the same fault again.
> +        */
> +       if ((make_spte_ret & SET_SPTE_WRITE_PROTECTED_PT) && write)
> +               ret = RET_PF_EMULATE;
> +
>
> ... corresponding to this code in mmu.c
>
>         if (set_spte_ret & SET_SPTE_WRITE_PROTECTED_PT) {
>                 if (write_fault)
>                         ret = RET_PF_EMULATE;
>                 kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH_CURRENT, vcpu);
>         }
>
> So it should indeed be better to make the code in
> page_fault_handle_target_level look the same as mmu/mmu.c.

That's an excellent point. I've made an effort to make them more
similar. I think this difference arose from the synchronization
changes I was working back from, but this will be much more elegant in
either case.

>
> Paolo
>