Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-196950-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, 31 May 2024 07:11:16 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@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>,
	"Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
	"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@google.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"dmatlack@google.com" <dmatlack@google.com>,
	"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Support TDX private mapping for
 TDP MMU
Message-ID: <20240531141116.GI386318@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <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>
 <20240524075519.GF212599@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <31a2b098797b3837597880d5827a727fee9be11e.camel@intel.com>
 <CABgObfa+vx3euEXwopBBzt7BEVT8MV7HuuLayRKxURnopO3f=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <b6217ba2f75366d25ff46cd72dcf671cdc57f340.camel@intel.com>
 <CABgObfYCnC2qoMHmKx7QK=pEoARfcGw=F-epXYT4z6uoJeH_-w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CABgObfYCnC2qoMHmKx7QK=pEoARfcGw=F-epXYT4z6uoJeH_-w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:25:46AM +0200,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 4:14 AM Edgecombe, Rick P
> <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2024-05-28 at 19:47 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:27 PM Edgecombe, Rick P
> > > <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > 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 non-TDX VM's won't need per-VM data, right? So it's just unneeded extra
> > > > state per-vm.
> > >
> > > It's just a cached value like there are many in the MMU. It's easier
> > > for me to read code without the mental overhead of a function call.
> >
> > Ok. Since this has (optimization) utility beyond TDX, maybe it's worth splitting
> > it off as a separate patch? I think maybe we'll pursue this path unless there is
> > objection.
> 
> Yes, absolutely.

Ok, let me cook an independent patch series for kvm-coco-queue. 
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>