Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:58:57 -0500 | From | Peter Xu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 04/15] KVM: Implement ring-based dirty memory tracking |
| |
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 05:28:54PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 17/12/19 17:24, Peter Xu wrote: > >> No, please pass it all the way down to the [&] functions but not to > >> kvm_write_guest_page. Those should keep using vcpu->kvm. > > Actually I even wanted to refactor these helpers. I mean, we have two > > sets of helpers now, kvm_[vcpu]_{read|write}*(), so one set is per-vm, > > the other set is per-vcpu. IIUC the only difference of these two are > > whether we should consider ((vcpu)->arch.hflags & HF_SMM_MASK) or we > > just write to address space zero always. > > Right. > > > Could we unify them into a > > single set of helper (I'll just drop the *_vcpu_* helpers because it's > > longer when write) but we always pass in vcpu* as the first parameter? > > Then we add another parameter "vcpu_smm" to show whether we want to > > consider the HF_SMM_MASK flag. > > You'd have to check through all KVM implementations whether you always > have the vCPU. Also non-x86 doesn't have address spaces, and by the > time you add ", true" or ", false" it's longer than the "_vcpu_" you > have removed. So, not a good idea in my opinion. :D
Well, now I've changed my mind. :) (considering that we still have many places that will not have vcpu*...)
I can simply add that "vcpu_smm" parameter to kvm_vcpu_write_*() without removing the kvm_write_*() helpers. Then I'll be able to convert most of the kvm_write_*() (or its family) callers to kvm_vcpu_write*(..., vcpu_smm=false) calls where proper.
Would that be good?
-- Peter Xu
| |