Re: [PATCH 10/16] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Support TDX private mapping for TDP MMU

["Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>]

On Tue, 2024-05-28 at 19:47 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:27 PM Edgecombe, Rick P
> <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> wrote:
> > > I don't see benefit of x86_ops.max_gfn() compared to kvm->arch.max_gfn.
> > > But I don't have strong preference. Either way will work.
> > 
> > The non-TDX VM's won't need per-VM data, right? So it's just unneeded extra
> > state per-vm.
> 
> It's just a cached value like there are many in the MMU. It's easier
> for me to read code without the mental overhead of a function call.

Ok. Since this has (optimization) utility beyond TDX, maybe it's worth splitting
it off as a separate patch? I think maybe we'll pursue this path unless there is
objection.

> 
> > For TDX it will be based on the shared bit, so we actually already have the
> > per-
> > vm data we need. So we don't even need both gfn_shared_mask and max_gfn for
> > TDX.
> 
> But they are independent, for example AMD placed the encryption bit
> highest, then the reduced physical address space bits, then finally
> the rest of the gfn. I think it's consistent with the kvm_has_*
> approach, to not assume much and just store separate data.

I meant for a TDX specific x86_ops implementation we already have the data
needed to compute it (gfn_shared_mask - 1). I didn't realize SEV would benefit
from this too.