Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 16/18] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation unless necessary | From | Paolo Bonzini <> | Date | Wed, 31 Mar 2021 23:36:34 +0200 |
| |
On 31/03/21 23:22, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On a related topic, any preference on whether to have an explicit "must_lock" > flag (what I posted), or derive the logic based on other params? > > The helper I posted does: > > if (range->must_lock && > kvm_mmu_lock_and_check_handler(kvm, range, &locked)) > goto out_unlock; > > but it could be: > > if (!IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->on_lock) && !range->may_block && > kvm_mmu_lock_and_check_handler(kvm, range, &locked)) > goto out_unlock; > > The generated code should be nearly identical on a modern compiler, so it's > purely a question of aesthetics. I slightly prefer the explicit "must_lock" to > avoid spreading out the logic too much, but it also feels a bit superfluous.
I do as well, but I hope we don't need any lock after all as in the email I've just sent.
Paolo
| |