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 1/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Track if shadow MMU active
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.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>
 <20210429211833.3361994-2-bgardon@google.com> <YJGmpOzaFy9E0f5T@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <edfadb98-b86e-6d03-bdfc-9025fac73dee@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 22:26:18 +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: <YJGmpOzaFy9E0f5T@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 04/05/21 21:55, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> But, I think we we can avoid bikeshedding by simply eliminating this flag.  More
> in later patches.

Are you thinking of checking slot->arch.rmap[0] directly?  That should 
work indeed.

>> -	kvm_mmu_init_tdp_mmu(kvm);
>> +	if (!kvm_mmu_init_tdp_mmu(kvm))
>> +		activate_shadow_mmu(kvm);
> Doesn't come into play yet, but I would strongly prefer to open code setting the
> necessary flag instead of relying on the helper to never fail.
> 

You mean

kvm->arch.shadow_mmu_active = !kvm_mmu_init_tdp_mmu(kvm);

(which would assign to alloc_memslot_rmaps instead if shadow_mmu_active 
is removed)?  That makes sense.

Paolo