On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 4:24 PM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopher...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 04:15:17PM -0700, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:04 AM Sean Christopherson
> > <sean.j.christopher...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > > index 52d661a758585..0ddfdab942554 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
> > > > @@ -1884,7 +1884,14 @@ static int kvm_handle_hva(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > > unsigned long hva,
> > > > int kvm_unmap_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long start, unsigned
> > > > long end,
> > > > unsigned flags)
> > > > {
> > > > - return kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, start, end, 0, kvm_unmap_rmapp);
> > > > + int r;
> > > > +
> > > > + r = kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, start, end, 0, kvm_unmap_rmapp);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_enabled)
> > > > + r |= kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_hva_range(kvm, start, end);
> > >
> > > Similar to an earlier question, is this intentionally additive, or can
> > > this
> > > instead by:
> > >
> > > if (kvm->arch.tdp_mmu_enabled)
> > > r = kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_hva_range(kvm, start, end);
> > > else
> > > r = kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, start, end, 0,
> > > kvm_unmap_rmapp);
> > >
> >
> > It is intentionally additive so the legacy/shadow MMU can handle nested.
>
> Duh. Now everything makes sense. I completely spaced on nested EPT.
>
> I wonder if would be worth adding a per-VM sticky bit that is set when an
> rmap is added so that all of these flows can skip the rmap walks when using
> the TDP MMU without a nested guest.
We actually do that in the full version of this whole TDP MMU scheme.
It works very well.
I'm not sure why I didn't include that in this patch set - probably
just complexity. I'll definitely include that as an optimization along
with the lazy rmap allocation in the followup patch set.
