From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v7 3/4] arm: dirty log write protect management
 support
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:52:33 +0800
Message-ID: <53915721.9090006@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1401916278-24835-1-git-send-email-m.smarduch@samsung.com> <5390146F.8020407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5390C04F.6060201@samsung.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, christoffer.dall@linaro.org,
	marc.zyngier@arm.com, steve.capper@arm.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, gavin.guo@canonical.com,
	peter.maydell@linaro.org, jays.lee@samsung.com,
	sungjinn.chung@samsung.com
To: Mario Smarduch <m.smarduch@samsung.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.148]:38064 "EHLO
	e23smtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750710AbaFFFvR (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 6 Jun 2014 01:51:17 -0400
Received: from /spool/local
	by e23smtp06.au.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, 6 Jun 2014 15:51:14 +1000
Received: from d23relay05.au.ibm.com (d23relay05.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.152])
	by d23dlp03.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9271E3578048
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri,  6 Jun 2014 15:51:11 +1000 (EST)
Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138])
	by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s565TGYl46923888
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:29:16 +1000
Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s565p9uT024024
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:51:10 +1000
In-Reply-To: <5390C04F.6060201@samsung.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 06/06/2014 03:09 AM, Mario Smarduch wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 11:55 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 06/05/2014 05:11 AM, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>>
>>> +	spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>>> +
>>> +	for (i = 0; i < n / sizeof(long); i++) {
>>> +		unsigned long mask;
>>> +		gfn_t offset;
>>> +
>>> +		if (!dirty_bitmap[i])
>>> +			continue;
>>> +
>>> +		is_dirty = true;
>>> +
>>> +		mask = xchg(&dirty_bitmap[i], 0);
>>> +		dirty_bitmap_buffer[i] = mask;
>>> +
>>> +		offset = i * BITS_PER_LONG;
>>> +		kvm_mmu_write_protect_pt_masked(kvm, memslot, offset, mask);
>>> +	}
>>> +	if (is_dirty)
>>> +		kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
>>
>> You moved the flush into mmu-lock. Please do not :).
>>
>> See commit 198c74f43f0f5473f99967aead30ddc622804bc1
>>
> 
> Thanks for reviewing, I revised to pick up your version.
> 
> Functionally there should be no impact on ARM, the
> TLB flush function is different.

Yeah, i agree your point on ARM, but your patch moved
the function from x86 to the common code, that means
this function is reused between ARM and x86. No?