Messages in this thread | | | From | David Matlack <> | Date | Mon, 30 Oct 2023 11:21:12 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v13 03/35] KVM: Use gfn instead of hva for mmu_notifier_retry |
| |
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:01 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 5:53 PM David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com> wrote: > > > > On 2023-10-27 11:21 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > From: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > Currently in mmu_notifier invalidate path, hva range is recorded and > > > then checked against by mmu_notifier_retry_hva() in the page fault > > > handling path. However, for the to be introduced private memory, a page > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Is there a missing word here? > > No but there could be missing hyphens ("for the to-be-introduced > private memory"); possibly a "soon" could help parsing and that is > what you were talking about?
Ah that explains it :)
> > > > if (likely(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress == 1)) { > > > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_start = INVALID_GPA; > > > + kvm->mmu_invalidate_range_end = INVALID_GPA; > > > > I don't think this is incorrect, but I was a little suprised to see this > > here rather than in end() when mmu_invalidate_in_progress decrements to > > 0. > > I think that would be incorrect on the very first start?
Good point. KVM could initialize start/end before registering notifiers, but that's extra code.
| |