From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Laurentiu Tudor <b10716@freescale.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:27:27 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: PPC: e6500: Handle LRAT error exception
Message-Id: <560BC71F.1070903@freescale.com>
List-Id: <kvm-ppc.vger.kernel.org>
References: <5603F684.9020501@freescale.com>
In-Reply-To: <5603F684.9020501@freescale.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org

On 09/30/2015 01:32 PM, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
> On 09/25/2015 03:10 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 16:11 +0300, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:

[snip]

>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
>>> index 12d5c67..99ad88a 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
>>> @@ -96,6 +96,112 @@ static inline void __write_host_tlbe(struct 
>>> kvm_book3e_206_tlb_entry *stlbe,
>>>                                     stlbe->mas2, stlbe->mas7_3);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(CONFIG_KVM_BOOKE_HV)
>>> +static int lrat_next(void)
>>> +{
>>
>> Will anything break by removing the CONFIG_64BIT condition, even if we don't 
>> have a 32-bit target that uses this?
> 
> Not completly certain but i remember getting compile or link errors
> on 32-bit e500mc or e500v2. I can recheck if you want.
> 
>>> +void kvmppc_lrat_map(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
>>> +     unsigned long pfn;
>>> +     unsigned long hva;
>>> +     struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>>> +     unsigned long psize;
>>> +     int tsize;
>>> +     unsigned long tsize_pages;
>>> +
>>> +     slot = gfn_to_memslot(vcpu->kvm, gfn);
>>> +     if (!slot) {
>>> +             pr_err_ratelimited("%s: couldn't find memslot for gfn %lx!\n",
>>> +                                __func__, (long)gfn);
>>> +             return;
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     hva = slot->userspace_addr;
>>
>> What if the faulting address is somewhere in the middle of the slot?  
>> Shouldn't you use gfn_to_hva_memslot() like kvmppc_e500_shadow_map()?  In 
>> fact there's probably a lot of logic that should be shared between these two 
>> functions.
> 
> So if my understanding is correct most of the gfn -> pfn translation
> stuff done in kvmppc_e500_shadow_map() should also be present in here.
> If that's the case maybe i should first extract this code (which includes
> VM_PFNMAP handling) in a separate function and call it from both kvmppc_lrat_map()
> and kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(). 
> 

Off-topic, but just noticed that kvmppc_e500_shadow_map() is marked as inline.
Was that on purpose? Is inlining such a large function worth anything?

---
Best Regards, Laurentiu