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

[Sean Christopherson]

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.