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> <20200925212302.3979661-19-bgardon@google.com>
 <44822999-f5dc-6116-db12-a41f5bd80dd8@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <44822999-f5dc-6116-db12-a41f5bd80dd8@redhat.com>
From:   Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:30:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CANgfPd_dQ19sZz2wzSfz7-RzdbQrfP6cYJLpSYbyNyQW6Uf09Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/22] kvm: mmu: Support disabling dirty logging for the
 tdp MMU
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Cannon Matthews <cannonmatthews@google.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.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 Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:09 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 25/09/20 23:22, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > +     for_each_tdp_pte_root(iter, root, start, end) {
> > +             if (!is_shadow_present_pte(iter.old_spte) ||
> > +                 is_last_spte(iter.old_spte, iter.level))
> > +                     continue;
> > +
>
> I'm starting to wonder if another iterator like
> for_each_tdp_leaf_pte_root would be clearer, since this idiom repeats
> itself quite often.  The tdp_iter_next_leaf function would be easily
> implemented as
>
>         while (likely(iter->valid) &&
>                (!is_shadow_present_pte(iter.old_spte) ||
>                 is_last_spte(iter.old_spte, iter.level))
>                 tdp_iter_next(iter);

Do you see a substantial efficiency difference between adding a
tdp_iter_next_leaf and building on for_each_tdp_pte_using_root with
something like:

#define for_each_tdp_leaf_pte_using_root(_iter, _root, _start, _end)    \
        for_each_tdp_pte_using_root(_iter, _root, _start, _end)         \
                if (!is_shadow_present_pte(_iter.old_spte) ||           \
                    !is_last_spte(_iter.old_spte, _iter.level))         \
                        continue;                                       \
                else

I agree that putting those checks in a wrapper makes the code more concise.

>
> Paolo
>