e better?
Yes, this makes sense. Will update. Thanks.
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
chset is based on the fix patch "x86/Hyper-V: Fix definition
> > HV_MAX_FLUSH_REP_COUNT".
> > (https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1939455.html)
>
> Note that this won't make it in 5.1 unless Linus releases an -rc8.
> Otherwise, I'll get to it next week.
Hi Paolo:
Sure. Thanks for your review.
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:23 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 15/02/19 16:05, Tianyu Lan wrote:
> > Yes, you are right. Thanks to point out and will fix. The last_level
> > flag is to avoid adding middle page node(e.g, PGD, PMD)
> > into flush list. The address range will
e node into flush list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo
>
> > if (tdp_enabled)
> > spte |= kvm_x86_ops->get_mt_mask(vcpu, gfn,
> > kvm_is_mmio_pfn(pfn));
>
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
ould share more code, not
> less).
kvm_vm_ioctl_clear_dirty_log/get_dirty_log() is to get/clear dirty log with
memslot as unit. We may just flush tlbs of the affected memslot instead of
entire page table's when range flush is available.
>
> Paolo
>
> > + flush = false;
> > + }
> > +
>
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
kvm);
> > + kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_list(vcpu->kvm, &flush_list);
>
> This is a bit confusing and potentially fragile. It's not obvious that
> kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_list() is guaranteed to call
> kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() when kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range() is
> false, and you're relying on the kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_list() call
> chain to never optimize away the empty list case. Rechecking
> kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range() isn't expensive.
That makes sense. Will update. Thanks.
>
> >
> > return nr_present;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.14.4
> >
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
OK. Thanks for suggestion and will update in the next version.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu
>
> For the powerpc bits:
>
> Acked-by: Paul Mackerras
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:12 PM Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 07:59:22PM +0800, Tianyu Lan wrote:
> > Gentile Ping...
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:43 PM wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Lan Tianyu
> > >
> > > Sor
96
> +++++++++
> arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h | 3 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 69 ++
> virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 6 ++-
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 5 +-
> 17 files changed, 295 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.14.4
>
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
patch in the
> > series, this function remains unused. So, not only is it not used
> > in this patch, it's not used in this series.
>
> Note - I seem to have only received patches 1 through 4, so this is
> based on the patches I've received.
>
Sorry to confuse your. I get from CCers from get_maintainer.pl script.
The next patch "[PATCH V4 3/15]KVM: Replace old tlb flush function with
new one to flush a specified range" calls new function.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/13/254
The patch "[PATCH V4 4/15] KVM: Make kvm_set_spte_hva() return int"
changes under ARM directory. Please have a look. Thanks.
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
on the patch that actually
> use it.
>
> -Liran
>
Normally, I also prefer to put the function definition into the patch
which use it.
But the following patch "KVM: Replace old tlb flush function with new
one to flush a specified range"
and other patches which use new functions will change a lot of places.
It's not friendly for review and
so I split them into pieces.
--
Best regards
Tianyu Lan
11 matches
Mail list logo
