On 05/09/2013 07:18 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 06:16:55PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >> On 05/09/2013 02:44 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: >>> Rather than clearing the ACC_WRITE_MASK bit of pte_access in the >>> "if (mmu_need_write_protect())" block not to call mark_page_dirty() in >>> the following if statement, simply moving the call into the appropriate >>> else block is better. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Takuya Yoshikawa <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 7 ++----- >>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c >>> index 004cc87..08119a8 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c >>> @@ -2386,14 +2386,11 @@ static int set_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 >>> *sptep, >>> pgprintk("%s: found shadow page for %llx, marking ro\n", >>> __func__, gfn); >>> ret = 1; >>> - pte_access &= ~ACC_WRITE_MASK; >>> spte &= ~(PT_WRITABLE_MASK | SPTE_MMU_WRITEABLE); >>> - } >>> + } else >>> + mark_page_dirty(vcpu->kvm, gfn); >>> } >>> >>> - if (pte_access & ACC_WRITE_MASK) >>> - mark_page_dirty(vcpu->kvm, gfn); >>> - >>> set_pte: >>> if (mmu_spte_update(sptep, spte)) >>> kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(vcpu->kvm); >> >> That function is really magic, and this change do no really help it. I had >> several >> patches posted some months ago to make these kind of code better >> understanding, but >> i am too tired to update them. > Can you point me to them? Your work is really appreciated, I am sorry
There are two patches about this set_spte cleanups: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/23/125 https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/23/138 > you feel this way. It is not your fault, it is mine. Will update these patches when i finish the zap-all-page and zap-mmio-sp related things. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
