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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Lazily allocate memslot rmaps
To:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Peter Shier <pshier@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>
References: <20210429211833.3361994-1-bgardon@google.com>
 <20210429211833.3361994-8-bgardon@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1e50ae22-16a3-c43d-594a-a20d2ea3caa5@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 22:22:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210429211833.3361994-8-bgardon@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 29/04/21 23:18, Ben Gardon wrote:
> +	/*
> +	 * If set, the rmap should be allocated for any newly created or
> +	 * modified memslots. If allocating rmaps lazily, this may be set
> +	 * before the rmaps are allocated for existing memslots, but
> +	 * shadow_mmu_active will not be set until after the rmaps are fully
> +	 * allocated.
> +	 */
> +	bool alloc_memslot_rmaps;

Let's remove the whole sentence starting with "If allocating rmaps 
lazily".  The part about shadow_mmu_active should go there, while the 
rest is pointless as long as we just say that this flag will be accessed 
only under slots_arch_lock.

(Regarding shadow_mmu_active, I think I know what Sean will be 
suggesting because I had a similar thought and decided it introduced 
extra unnecessary complication... but maybe not, so let's see what he says).

Paolo