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> <CANgfPd_dQ19sZz2wzSfz7-RzdbQrfP6cYJLpSYbyNyQW6Uf09Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5dc72eec-a4bd-f31a-f439-cdf8c5b48c05@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5dc72eec-a4bd-f31a-f439-cdf8c5b48c05@redhat.com>
From:   Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:28:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CANgfPd8Nzi2Cb3cvh5nFoaXTPbfm7Y77e4iM6-zOp5Qa3wNJBw@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 Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 10:21 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/10/20 18:30, Ben Gardon wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
>
> No, that would be just another way to write the same thing.  That said,
> making the iteration API more complicated also has disadvantages because
> if get a Cartesian explosion of changes.

I wouldn't be too worried about that. The only things I ever found
worth making an iterator case for were:
Every SPTE
Every present SPTE
Every present leaf SPTE

And really there aren't many cases that use the middle one.

>
> Regarding the naming, I'm leaning towards
>
>     tdp_root_for_each_pte
>     tdp_vcpu_for_each_pte
>
> which is shorter than the version with "using" and still clarifies that
> "root" and "vcpu" are the thing that the iteration works on.

That sounds good to me. I agree it's similarly clear.

>
> Paolo
>