Re: [PATCH 05/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Use for_each_rmap_spte macro instead of pte_list_walk()

[Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>]

On 11/12/2015 07:52 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync() alone uses pte_list_walk(), witch does
> nearly the same as the for_each_rmap_spte macro.  The only difference
> is that is_shadow_present_pte() checks cannot be placed there because
> kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync() can be called with a new parent pointer
> whose entry is not set yet.
>
> By calling mark_unsync() separately for the parent and adding the parent
> pointer to the parent_ptes chain later in kvm_mmu_get_page(), the macro
> works with no problem.
>
> Signed-off-by: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa_takuya_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> ---
>   arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 36 +++++++++++++-----------------------
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> index e8cfdc4..1691171 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -1007,26 +1007,6 @@ static void pte_list_remove(u64 *spte, unsigned long *pte_list)
>   	}
>   }
>
> -typedef void (*pte_list_walk_fn) (u64 *spte);
> -static void pte_list_walk(unsigned long *pte_list, pte_list_walk_fn fn)
> -{
> -	struct pte_list_desc *desc;
> -	int i;
> -
> -	if (!*pte_list)
> -		return;
> -
> -	if (!(*pte_list & 1))
> -		return fn((u64 *)*pte_list);
> -
> -	desc = (struct pte_list_desc *)(*pte_list & ~1ul);
> -	while (desc) {
> -		for (i = 0; i < PTE_LIST_EXT && desc->sptes[i]; ++i)
> -			fn(desc->sptes[i]);
> -		desc = desc->more;
> -	}
> -}
> -
>   static unsigned long *__gfn_to_rmap(gfn_t gfn, int level,
>   				    struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
>   {
> @@ -1741,7 +1721,12 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_alloc_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>   static void mark_unsync(u64 *spte);
>   static void kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync(struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
>   {
> -	pte_list_walk(&sp->parent_ptes, mark_unsync);
> +	u64 *sptep;
> +	struct rmap_iterator iter;
> +
> +	for_each_rmap_spte(&sp->parent_ptes, &iter, sptep) {
> +		mark_unsync(sptep);
> +	}
>   }
>
>   static void mark_unsync(u64 *spte)
> @@ -2111,12 +2096,17 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *kvm_mmu_get_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>   		if (sp->unsync && kvm_sync_page_transient(vcpu, sp))
>   			break;
>
> -		mmu_page_add_parent_pte(vcpu, sp, parent_pte);
>   		if (sp->unsync_children) {
>   			kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_MMU_SYNC, vcpu);
>   			kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync(sp);

After your change above, the @sp's parents have not been changed, no need to call it now.

> -		} else if (sp->unsync)
> +			if (parent_pte)
> +				mark_unsync(parent_pte);
> +		} else if (sp->unsync) {
>   			kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync(sp);

Ditto.

> +			if (parent_pte)
> +				mark_unsync(parent_pte);
> +		}
> +		mmu_page_add_parent_pte(vcpu, sp, parent_pte);
>
>   		__clear_sp_write_flooding_count(sp);
>   		trace_kvm_mmu_get_page(sp, false);
>