From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA81FCA0FF3 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2023 16:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237362AbjIEQEM (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Sep 2023 12:04:12 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35718 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1353786AbjIEIKm (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Sep 2023 04:10:42 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B3831AD; Tue, 5 Sep 2023 01:10:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1693901439; x=1725437439; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FKt4N39+eLOrfCYx28v1L2U/jY+7IRlu5++Gi9mCgMM=; b=VNf9/SRxaFCDcJDPSR61lZ9HwiPy01ijSQYsuBkE+ocaSxstJMplUlLB jOac5346Zeh3BJB53RxFFgoVvpn+AM1udRxT2Mlyl+sUol2LPZKULAP3h EBi34wxOvKgdxWvc0I/3SmD42CkMQnrAVoEEgVIWWcU9diloRqvxUwXZe wXkzflSE+rLEZSMchan+4VOk+4+/Qxzs06PnF49snJatQaM/4IPTyA646 ru8gGnNMX1jLH+tejUwiRql4E8Tdh8CMQovJPPIlgz3XQkXxtkyA4I1wX AgvZm+Aqq76teOAXWFVSMTCbcwxvWXGeMwuz7CKYa51Eg+8pcz1FCv9if w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10823"; a="443137224" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.02,228,1688454000"; d="scan'208";a="443137224" Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Sep 2023 01:10:39 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10823"; a="717799453" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.02,228,1688454000"; d="scan'208";a="717799453" Received: from binbinwu-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.93.2.44]) ([10.93.2.44]) by orsmga006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Sep 2023 01:10:35 -0700 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 16:10:33 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 01/16] KVM: TDP_MMU: Go to next level if smaller private mapping exists To: isaku.yamahata@intel.com, Xiaoyao Li Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@gmail.com, Paolo Bonzini , erdemaktas@google.com, Sean Christopherson , Sagi Shahar , David Matlack , Kai Huang , Zhi Wang , chen.bo@intel.com, hang.yuan@intel.com, tina.zhang@intel.com References: From: Binbin Wu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On 7/26/2023 6:23 AM, isaku.yamahata@intel.com wrote: > From: Xiaoyao Li > > Cannot map a private page as large page if any smaller mapping exists. > > It has to wait for all the not-mapped smaller page to be mapped and > promote it to larger mapping. > > Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata > --- > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c > index 95ba78944712..a9f0f4ade2d0 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c > @@ -1293,7 +1293,8 @@ int kvm_tdp_mmu_map(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_page_fault *fault) > tdp_mmu_for_each_pte(iter, mmu, is_private, raw_gfn, raw_gfn + 1) { > int r; > > - if (fault->nx_huge_page_workaround_enabled) > + if (fault->nx_huge_page_workaround_enabled || > + kvm_gfn_shared_mask(vcpu->kvm)) > disallowed_hugepage_adjust(fault, iter.old_spte, iter.level); > > /* The implementation of disallowed_hugepage_adjust() is as following: void disallowed_hugepage_adjust(struct kvm_page_fault *fault, u64 spte, int cur_level) {     if (cur_level > PG_LEVEL_4K &&         cur_level == fault->goal_level &&         is_shadow_present_pte(spte) &&         !is_large_pte(spte) &&         spte_to_child_sp(spte)->nx_huge_page_disallowed) {             ...     } } One condition is spte_to_child_sp(spte)->nx_huge_page_disallowed should be true to decrease the goal level of the fault. Does this condition make the change of this patch invalid?