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;
Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 21:26:37 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Linux MM Mailing List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] kvm/x86: Allow to respond to generic signals
 during slow page faults
Message-ID: <Yvq6DSu4wmPfXO5/@google.com>
References: <20220721000318.93522-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20220721000318.93522-4-peterx@redhat.com>
 <YvVitqmmj7Y0eggY@google.com>
 <YvVtX+rosTLxFPe3@xz-m1.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YvVtX+rosTLxFPe3@xz-m1.local>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 11, 2022, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 08:12:38PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > index 17252f39bd7c..aeafe0e9cfbf 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > @@ -3012,6 +3012,13 @@ static int kvm_handle_bad_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn, kvm_pfn_t pfn)
> > >  static int handle_abnormal_pfn(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault,
> > >  			       unsigned int access)
> > >  {
> > > +	/* NOTE: not all error pfn is fatal; handle sigpending pfn first */
> > > +	if (unlikely(is_sigpending_pfn(fault->pfn))) {
> > 
> > Move this into kvm_handle_bad_page(), then there's no need for a comment to call
> > out that this needs to come before the is_error_pfn() check.  This _is_ a "bad"
> > PFN, it just so happens that userspace might be able to resolve the "bad" PFN.
> 
> It's a pity it needs to be in "bad pfn" category since that's the only
> thing we can easily use, but true it is now.

Would renaming that to kvm_handle_error_pfn() help?  I agree that "bad" is poor
terminology now that it handles a variety of errors, hence the quotes.