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: [RFC PATCH 00/10] KVM: x86/mmu: simplify argument to kvm page
 fault handler
To:     David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc:     Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
References: <cover.1618914692.git.isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
 <YK65V++S2Kt1OLTu@google.com>
 <936b00e2-1bcc-d5cc-5ae1-59f43ab5325f@redhat.com>
 <20210610220056.GA642297@private.email.ne.jp>
 <CALzav=d2m+HffSLu5e3gz0cYk=MZ2uc1a3K+vP8VRVvLRiwd9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <92ffcffb-74c1-1876-fe86-a47553a2aa5b@redhat.com>
 <CALzav=eSrEGt9Xn99YtmHnWE1hm7ExZ4o_wjn_Rc0ZokLpizeQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <97ea1a31-4763-cefd-bfb8-8eeef46931b9@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:07:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALzav=eSrEGt9Xn99YtmHnWE1hm7ExZ4o_wjn_Rc0ZokLpizeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 29/07/21 19:24, David Matlack wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 10:17 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 29/07/21 18:48, David Matlack wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 3:05 PM Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for feedback. Let me respin it.
>>>
>>> Hi Isaku,
>>>
>>> I'm working on a series to plumb the memslot backing the faulting gfn
>>> through the page fault handling stack to avoid redundant lookups. This
>>> would be much cleaner to implement on top of your struct
>>> kvm_page_fault series than the existing code.
>>>
>>> Are you still planning to send another version of this series? Or if
>>> you have decided to drop it or go in a different direction?
>>
>> I can work on this and post updated patches next week.
> 
> Sounds good. For the record I'm also looking at adding an per-vCPU LRU
> slot, which *may* obviate the need to pass around the slot. (Isaku's
> series is still a nice cleanup regardless.)

Backport done, but not tested very well yet (and it's scary :)).

Paolo