From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: MMU: Replace role.glevels with role.cr4_pae
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:29:46 -0300
Message-ID: <20100414182946.GA8353@amt.cnet>
References: <1271262003-29973-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
 <4BC5EE0C.60705@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36129 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756410Ab0DNSaL (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:30:11 -0400
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o3EIUAwr000483
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:30:10 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4BC5EE0C.60705@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:32:12PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/14/2010 07:20 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >There is no real distinction between glevels=3 and glevels=4; both have
> >exactly the same format and the code is treated exactly the same way.  Drop
> >role.glevels and replace is with role.cr4_pae (which is meaningful).  This
> >simplifies the code a bit.
> >
> >As a side effect, it allows sharing shadow page tables between pae and
> >longmode guest page tables at the same guest page.
> 
> >
> >  static int kvm_sync_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
> >  {
> >-	if (sp->role.glevels != vcpu->arch.mmu.root_level) {
> >+	if (sp->role.cr4_pae != !!is_pae(vcpu)) {
> >  		kvm_mmu_zap_page(vcpu->kvm, sp);
> >  		return 1;
> >  	}
> 
> This bit confuses me a little.  Why is it needed?  It will never hit
> from mmu_sync_children(), and as for kvm_mmu_get_page(), it will
> simply zap unrelated pages?

kvm_mmu_get_page is write protecting a gfn. If there's shadow for a
different role, and its unsync, it needs to be synchronized.

Perhaps it could call the appropriate _sync_page version instead
of zapping, similar to mmu_pte_write_new_pte.

> Is it related to the restriction that we can only unsync if we have
> just one shadow page for a gfn?  That's somewhat artificial (and
> hurts nonpae guests, and guests with linear page tables).

If gfn is shadowed at PMD or higher level, you can't unsync the PTE 
shadow.