lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] KVM:X86 simply update A/D bits route
From
Date
On 12/10/2017 23:17, Peng Hao wrote:
> update_accessed_dirty_bits return 0 when dirty/accessed bits are
> not supported. So walk_addr_generic just call update_accessed_dirty_bits
> with supporting dirty/accessed bits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> index 86b68dc..b40f23e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/paging_tmpl.h
> @@ -422,7 +422,7 @@ static int FNAME(walk_addr_generic)(struct guest_walker *walker,
> accessed_dirty &= pte >>
> (PT_GUEST_DIRTY_SHIFT - PT_GUEST_ACCESSED_SHIFT);
>
> - if (unlikely(!accessed_dirty)) {
> + if (unlikely(!accessed_dirty && have_ad)) {
> ret = FNAME(update_accessed_dirty_bits)(vcpu, mmu, walker, write_fault);
> if (unlikely(ret < 0))
> goto error;
>

At least you would have to remove the corresponding conditional in
update_accessed_dirty_bits, or change it to a WARN.

But I don't see the point really... why is it _better_ to check in
walk_addr_generic instead of update_accessed_dirty_bits?

Paolo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-12 16:19    [W:0.038 / U:0.900 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site