Messages in this thread | | | From | "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 26/29] KVM: Optimize gfn lookup in kvm_zap_gfn_range() | Date | Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:45:58 +0100 |
| |
On 01.12.2021 04:41, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: >> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h >> index 41efe53cf150..6fce6eb797a7 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h >> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h >> @@ -848,6 +848,105 @@ struct kvm_memory_slot *id_to_memslot(struct kvm_memslots *slots, int id) >> return NULL; >> } >> >> +/* Iterator used for walking memslots that overlap a gfn range. */ >> +struct kvm_memslot_iter { >> + struct kvm_memslots *slots; >> + gfn_t end; >> + struct rb_node *node; >> +}; > > ... > >> +static inline struct kvm_memory_slot *kvm_memslot_iter_slot(struct kvm_memslot_iter *iter) >> +{ >> + return container_of(iter->node, struct kvm_memory_slot, gfn_node[iter->slots->node_idx]); > > Having to use a helper in callers of kvm_for_each_memslot_in_gfn_range() is a bit > ugly, any reason not to grab @slot as well? Then the callers just do iter.slot, > which IMO is much more readable.
"slot" can be easily calculated from "node" together with either "slots" or "node_idx" (the code above just adjusts a pointer) so storing it in the iterator makes little sense if the later are already stored there.
> And if we do that, I'd also vote to omit slots and end from the iterator. It would > mean passing in slots and end to kvm_memslot_iter_is_valid() and kvm_memslot_iter_next(), > but that's more idiomatic in a for-loop if iter is considered to be _just_ the iterator > part. "slots" is arguable, but "end" really shouldn't be part of the iterator.
You're right that we can get away with not storing "end", will remove it.
Thanks, Maciej
| |