lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 02/10] KVM: MMU: abstract spte write-protect
    On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:57:15 +0800
    Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

    > Introduce a common function to abstract spte write-protect to
    > cleanup the code
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

    ...

    > +/* Return true if the spte is dropped. */
    > +static bool spte_write_protect(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *sptep, bool *flush)
    > +{
    > + u64 spte = *sptep;
    > +
    > + if (!is_writable_pte(spte))
    > + return false;
    > +
    > + rmap_printk("rmap_write_protect: spte %p %llx\n", sptep, *sptep);

    ...

    > @@ -3902,16 +3915,7 @@ void kvm_mmu_slot_remove_write_access(struct kvm *kvm, int slot)
    > !is_last_spte(pt[i], sp->role.level))
    > continue;
    >
    > - if (is_large_pte(pt[i])) {
    > - drop_spte(kvm, &pt[i]);
    > - --kvm->stat.lpages;
    > - continue;
    > - }
    > -
    > - /* avoid RMW */
    > - if (is_writable_pte(pt[i]))
    > - mmu_spte_update(&pt[i],
    > - pt[i] & ~PT_WRITABLE_MASK);
    > + spte_write_protect(kvm, &pt[i], &flush);

    Adding rmap_printk() here seems wrong.

    If you think it is not a problem, please explain why you think so in
    the changelog.

    Thanks,
    Takuya


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-20 11:41    [W:4.195 / U:0.924 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site