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;
IronPort-SDR: E/yl1KWu99AJhmuK11okOZwocRJT8m2Bhb9UI/Tm/CMDil39wWMHXtl81WT1ub1zJ2DS+pU2Nt
 2ymNmCUz4wiA==
IronPort-SDR: NLV7HZm3qe0XtnQbHs/tSNUQ882x4e/i7jpzAtBOFKgWnmvwKBC4JtVXZqanF6JvpP2AJvawhy
 /m2ac+xfbPbg==
Date:   Wed, 4 Nov 2020 16:44:12 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: x86/mmu: Add macro for hugepage GFN mask
Message-ID: <20201105004412.GA24605@linux.intel.com>
References: <20201027214300.1342-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
 <80038ae1-d603-dc22-1997-1ad7da0a936d@redhat.com>
 <20201028152948.GA7584@linux.intel.com>
 <e3d68b2b-2af6-04ce-c5f6-47786d9a15bb@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e3d68b2b-2af6-04ce-c5f6-47786d9a15bb@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:08:48AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/10/20 16:29, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > The naming and usage also aligns with the kernel, which defines PAGE, PMD and
> > PUD masks, and has near identical usage patterns.
> > 
> >   #define PAGE_SIZE               (_AC(1,UL) << PAGE_SHIFT)
> >   #define PAGE_MASK               (~(PAGE_SIZE-1))
> > 
> >   #define PMD_PAGE_SIZE           (_AC(1, UL) << PMD_SHIFT)
> >   #define PMD_PAGE_MASK           (~(PMD_PAGE_SIZE-1))
> > 
> >   #define PUD_PAGE_SIZE           (_AC(1, UL) << PUD_SHIFT)
> >   #define PUD_PAGE_MASK           (~(PUD_PAGE_SIZE-1))
> 
> Well, PAGE_MASK is also one of my pet peeves for Linux.  At least I am
> consistent. :)
> 
> >> and of course if you're debugging it you have to
> >> look closer and check if it's really "x & -y" or "x & ~y", but at least
> >> in normal cursory code reading that's how it works for me.
> > 
> > IMO, "x & -y" has a higher barrier to entry, especially when the kernel's page
> > masks uses "x & ~(y - 1))".  But, my opinion is definitely colored by my
> > inability to read two's-complement on the fly.
> 
> Fair enough.  What about having instead
> 
> #define KVM_HPAGE_GFN_BASE(gfn, level)  \
>    (x & ~(KVM_PAGES_PER_HPAGE(gfn) - 1))
> #define KVM_HPAGE_GFN_INDEX(gfn, level)  \
>    (x & (KVM_PAGES_PER_HPAGE(gfn) - 1))
> 
> ?

Hmm, not awful?  What about OFFSET instead of INDEX, to pair with page offset?
I don't particularly love either one, but I can't think of anything better.