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: <20220503150735.32723-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
 <20220503150735.32723-4-jiangshanlai@gmail.com> <YoLlzcejEDh8VpoB@google.com>
 <CAJhGHyCKdxti0gDjDP27MDd=bK+0BecXqzExo5t-WAOQLO5WwA@mail.gmail.com> <YoPQV0wDIMBr3HKG@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <YoPQV0wDIMBr3HKG@google.com>
From:   Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 May 2022 17:12:23 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyD0d_dpfKQ9F-Q7nThGYwzjKv_2gnphKUAVtEYZsDygUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/7] KVM: X86/MMU: Link PAE root pagetable with its children
To:     David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR MIPS (KVM/mips)" 
        <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@antgroup.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:42 AM David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com> wrote:

>
> Ah of course. e.g. FNAME(fetch) will call is_shadow_present_pte() on PAE
> PDPTEs.
>
> Could you also update the comment above SPTE_MMU_PRESENT_MASK? Right now it
> says: "Use bit 11, as it is ignored by all flavors of SPTEs and checking a low
> bit often generates better code than for a high bit, e.g. 56+." I think it
> would be helpful to also meniton that SPTE_MMU_PRESENT_MASK is also used in
> PDPTEs which only ignore bits 11:9.
>

Hello

Thank you for the review.

I think using BUILD_BUG_ON() in the place that requires the constraint
can avoid exploding comments in the definition since it is a build
time check and there are not too many constraints.

So I didn't change it in V3.

Or better (still using build-time check rather than comments):

#define PT_PTE_IGNORE_BITS xxxx
#define PAE_PTE_IGNORE_BITS xxxx
#define EPT_PTE_IGNORE_BITS xxxx

static_assert(PT_PTE_IGNORE_BITS & PAE_PTE_IGNORE_BITS &
              EPT_PTE_IGNORE_BITS & SPTE_MMU_PRESENT_MASK);

Thanks
Lai