On 12/01/2015 02:26 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Now, all non-leaf shadow page are page tracked, if gfn is not trackedHow about moving this right before for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp? As can_unsync is passed as
there is no non-leaf shadow page of gfn is existed, we can directly
make the shadow page of gfn to unsync
Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 26 ++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
index 5a2ca73..f89e77f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
@@ -2461,41 +2461,31 @@ static void __kvm_unsync_page(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_mmu_page *sp)
kvm_mmu_mark_parents_unsync(sp);
}
-static void kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn)
+static bool kvm_unsync_pages(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gfn_t gfn,
+ bool can_unsync)
{
struct kvm_mmu_page *s;
for_each_gfn_indirect_valid_sp(vcpu->kvm, s, gfn) {
+ if (!can_unsync)
+ return true;
parameter, so there's no point checking it several times.
A further thinking is can we move it to mmu_need_write_protect? Passing can_unsync as parameter to
kvm_unsync_pages sounds a little bit odd.
+How about large page mapping? Such as if guest uses 2M mapping and its shadow is indirect, does
if (s->unsync)
continue;
WARN_ON(s->role.level != PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL);
above WARN_ON still meet? As you removed the PT level check in mmu_need_write_protect.