Re: [PATCH v3 11/24] KVM: x86/mmu: Introduce kvm_split_cross_boundary_leafs()

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026, Vishal Annapurve wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 3:39 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > static int __kvm_tdp_mmu_split_huge_pages(struct kvm *kvm,
> > >                                         struct kvm_gfn_range *range,
> > >                                         int target_level,
> > >                                         bool shared,
> > >                                         bool cross_boundary_only)
> > > {
> > >       ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > And by using this helper, I found the name of the two wrapper functions
> > > are not ideal:
> > >
> > > kvm_tdp_mmu_try_split_huge_pages() is only for log dirty, and it should
> > > not be reachable for TD (VM with mirrored PT).  But currently it uses
> > > KVM_VALID_ROOTS for root filter thus mirrored PT is also included.  I
> > > think it's better to rename it, e.g., at least with "log_dirty" in the
> > > name so it's more clear this function is only for dealing log dirty (at
> > > least currently).  We can also add a WARN() if it's called for VM with
> > > mirrored PT but it's a different topic.
> > >
> > > kvm_tdp_mmu_gfn_range_split_cross_boundary_leafs() doesn't have
> > > "huge_pages", which isn't consistent with the other.  And it is a bit
> > > long.  If we don't have "gfn_range" in __kvm_tdp_mmu_split_huge_pages(),
> > > then I think we can remove "gfn_range" from
> > > kvm_tdp_mmu_gfn_range_split_cross_boundary_leafs() too to make it shorter.
> > >
> > > So how about:
> > >
> > > Rename kvm_tdp_mmu_try_split_huge_pages() to
> > > kvm_tdp_mmu_split_huge_pages_log_dirty(), and rename
> > > kvm_tdp_mmu_gfn_range_split_cross_boundary_leafs() to
> > > kvm_tdp_mmu_split_huge_pages_cross_boundary()
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > I find the "cross_boundary" termininology extremely confusing.  I also dislike
> > the concept itself, in the sense that it shoves a weird, specific concept into
> > the guts of the TDP MMU.
> >
> > The other wart is that it's inefficient when punching a large hole.  E.g. say
> > there's a 16TiB guest_memfd instance (no idea if that's even possible), and then
> > userpace punches a 12TiB hole.  Walking all ~12TiB just to _maybe_ split the head
> > and tail pages is asinine.
> >
> > And once kvm_arch_pre_set_memory_attributes() is dropped, I'm pretty sure the
> > _only_ usage is for guest_memfd PUNCH_HOLE, because unless I'm misreading the
> > code, the usage in tdx_honor_guest_accept_level() is superfluous and confusing.
> >
> > For the EPT violation case, the guest is accepting a page.  Just split to the
> > guest's accepted level, I don't see any reason to make things more complicated
> > than that.
> >
> > And then for the PUNCH_HOLE case, do the math to determine which, if any, head
> > and tail pages need to be split, and use the existing APIs to make that happen.
> 
> Just a note: Through guest_memfd upstream syncs, we agreed that
> guest_memfd will only allow the punch_hole operation for huge page
> size-aligned ranges for hugetlb and thp backing. i.e. the PUNCH_HOLE
> operation doesn't need to split any EPT mappings for foreseeable
> future.

Oh!  Right, forgot about that.  It's the conversion path that we need to sort out,
not PUNCH_HOLE.  Thanks for the reminder!