Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220525230904.1584480-1-bgardon@google.com> <a3ea7446-901f-1d33-47a9-35755b4d86d5@redhat.com>
 <Yo+O6AqNNBTg7BMY@xz-m1.local> <a1fbab86-ece9-82e3-64fe-0a19a125513b@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <a1fbab86-ece9-82e3-64fe-0a19a125513b@redhat.com>
From:   Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 May 2022 09:00:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CANgfPd8VqKYwr7fprie6h0y0cQEPLrbS5euMrBCjz7osypgkNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/MMU: Zap non-leaf SPTEs when disabling dirty logging
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        David Dunn <daviddunn@google.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 8:52 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/26/22 16:30, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 02:01:43PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 5/26/22 01:09, Ben Gardon wrote:
> >>> +           WARN_ON(max_mapping_level < iter.level);
> >>> +
> >>> +           /*
> >>> +            * If this page is already mapped at the highest
> >>> +            * viable level, there's nothing more to do.
> >>> +            */
> >>> +           if (max_mapping_level == iter.level)
> >>> +                   continue;
> >>> +
> >>> +           /*
> >>> +            * The page can be remapped at a higher level, so step
> >>> +            * up to zap the parent SPTE.
> >>> +            */
> >>> +           while (max_mapping_level > iter.level)
> >>> +                   tdp_iter_step_up(&iter);
> >>> +
> >>>             /* Note, a successful atomic zap also does a remote TLB flush. */
> >>> -           if (tdp_mmu_zap_spte_atomic(kvm, &iter))
> >>> -                   goto retry;
> >>> +           tdp_mmu_zap_spte_atomic(kvm, &iter);
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Can you make this a sparate function (for example
> >> tdp_mmu_zap_collapsible_spte_atomic)?  Otherwise looks great!
> >
> > There could be a tiny downside of using a helper in that it'll hide the
> > step-up of the iterator, which might not be as obvious as keeping it in the
> > loop?
>
> That's true, my reasoning is that zapping at a higher level can only be
> done by first moving the iterator up.  Maybe
> tdp_mmu_zap_at_level_atomic() is a better Though, I can very well apply
> this patch as is.

I'd be inclined to apply the patch as-is for a couple reasons:
1. As Peter said, hiding the step up could be confusing.
2. If we want to try the in-place promotion, we'll have to dismantle
that helper again anyway or else have a bunch of duplicate code.

>
> Paolo
>