Message-ID: <12a5ad9a-c1c5-852c-5041-096d2c518f8c@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 19:07:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [RFC 11/19] KVM: x86/mmu: Factor shadow_zero_check out of
 make_spte
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@google.com>,
        Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
References: <20211110223010.1392399-1-bgardon@google.com>
 <20211110223010.1392399-12-bgardon@google.com> <YZW02M0+YzAzBF/w@google.com>
 <YZXIqAHftH4d+B9Y@google.com> <YZaBSf+bPc69WR1R@google.com>
 <db8a2431-8a05-bd50-dd79-74c814c71edd@redhat.com>
 <YZaVKcFoKR4lqDIZ@google.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <YZaVKcFoKR4lqDIZ@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/18/21 19:02, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> but that's not a great name because the former is used also when shadowing
>> EPT/NPT.  I'm thinking of standardizing on "shadow" and "TDP" (it's not
>> perfect because of the 32-bit and tdp_mmu=0 cases, but it's a start).  Maybe
>> even split parts of mmu.c out into shadow_mmu.c.
> But shadow is flat out wrong until EPT and NPT support is ripped out of the "legacy"
> MMU.

Yeah, that's true.  "full" MMU? :)

>> - the two walkers (I'm quite convinced of splitting that part out of struct
>> kvm_mmu and getting rid of walk_mmu/nested_mmu): that's easy, it can be
>> walk01 and walk12 with "walk" pointing to one of them
>
> I am all in favor of walk01 and walk12, the guest_mmu vs. nested_mmu confusion
> is painful.
> 
>> - the two MMUs: with nested_mmu gone, root_mmu and guest_mmu are much less
>> confusing and we can keep those names.
>
> I would prefer root_mmu and nested_tdp_mmu.  guest_mmu is misleading because its
> not used for all cases of sp->role.guest_mode=1, i.e. when L1 is not using TDP
> then guest_mode=1 but KVM isn't using guest_mmu.

Ok, that sounds good too.

Paolo