From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: MMU: Flush TLBs only once in invlpg() before
 releasing mmu_lock
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:55:58 +0800
Message-ID: <4F34BF7E.4050009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20120210152831.6ac3ac87.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp> <20120210152950.b54969be.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: avi@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	aarcange@redhat.com
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e28smtp01.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.1]:37401 "EHLO
	e28smtp01.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750822Ab2BJG43 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:56:29 -0500
Received: from /spool/local
	by e28smtp01.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org> from <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>;
	Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:26:24 +0530
Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (d28av03.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.65])
	by d28relay05.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q1A6u2LD3277008
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:26:03 +0530
Received: from d28av03.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d28av03.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q1A6u1PP027140
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:56:02 +1100
In-Reply-To: <20120210152950.b54969be.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 02/10/2012 02:29 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:

> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> index 1561028..69d06f5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> @@ -682,6 +682,7 @@ static void FNAME(invlpg)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t gva)
>  	mmu_topup_memory_caches(vcpu);
> 
>  	spin_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> +
>  	for_each_shadow_entry(vcpu, gva, iterator) {
>  		level = iterator.level;
>  		sptep = iterator.sptep;
> @@ -697,8 +698,7 @@ static void FNAME(invlpg)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t gva)
>  			pte_gpa = FNAME(get_level1_sp_gpa)(sp);
>  			pte_gpa += (sptep - sp->spt) * sizeof(pt_element_t);
> 
> -			if (mmu_page_zap_pte(vcpu->kvm, sp, sptep))
> -				kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
> +			mmu_page_zap_pte(vcpu->kvm, sp, sptep);
> 
>  			if (!rmap_can_add(vcpu))
>  				break;
> @@ -713,6 +713,8 @@ static void FNAME(invlpg)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t gva)
>  		if (!is_shadow_present_pte(*sptep) || !sp->unsync_children)
>  			break;
>  	}
> +
> +	kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm);
>  	spin_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);


It is obvious wrong, i do not think all tlbs always need be flushed...