Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-188427-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 00:55:19 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Cc: "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
	"isaku.yamahata@gmail.com" <isaku.yamahata@gmail.com>,
	"seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>,
	"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	"sagis@google.com" <sagis@google.com>,
	"isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com" <isaku.yamahata@linux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"dmatlack@google.com" <dmatlack@google.com>,
	"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Support TDX private mapping for
 TDP MMU
Message-ID: <20240524075519.GF212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <20240517191630.GC412700@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20240520233227.GA29916@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <a071748328e5c0a85d91ea89bb57c4d23cd79025.camel@intel.com>
 <20240521161520.GB212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20240522223413.GC212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <9bc661643e3ce11f32f0bac78a2dbfd62d9cd283.camel@intel.com>
 <20240522234754.GD212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <4a6e393c6a1f99ee45b9020fbd2ac70f48c980b4.camel@intel.com>
 <20240523000100.GE212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <35b63d56fe6ebd98c61b7c7ca1680da91c28a4d0.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <35b63d56fe6ebd98c61b7c7ca1680da91c28a4d0.camel@intel.com>

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 06:27:49PM +0000,
"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 17:01 -0700, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > Ok, Let's include the patch.
> 
> We were discussing offline, that actually the existing behavior of
> kvm_mmu_max_gfn() can be improved for normal VMs. It would be more proper to
> trigger it off of the GFN range supported by EPT level, than the host MAXPA. 
> 
> Today I was thinking, to fix this would need somthing like an x86_ops.max_gfn(),
> so it could get at VMX stuff (usage of 4/5 level EPT). If that exists we might
> as well just call it directly in kvm_mmu_max_gfn().
> 
> Then for TDX we could just provide a TDX implementation, rather than stash the
> GFN on the kvm struct? Instead it could use gpaw stashed on struct kvm_tdx. The
> op would still need to be take a struct kvm.
> 
> What do you think of that alternative?

I don't see benefit of x86_ops.max_gfn() compared to kvm->arch.max_gfn.
But I don't have strong preference. Either way will work.

The max_gfn for the guest is rather static once the guest is created and
initialized.  Also the existing codes that use max_gfn expect that the value
doesn't change.  So we can use x86_ops.vm_init() to determine the value for VMX
and TDX.  If we introduced x86_ops.max_gfn(), the implementation will be simply
return kvm_vmx->max_gfn or return kvm_tdx->max_gfn. (We would have similar for
SVM and SEV.)  So I don't see benefit of x86_ops.max_gfn() than
kvm->arch.max_gfn.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>