Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Skip !MMU-present SPTEs when removing SP in exclusive mode | From | Paolo Bonzini <> | Date | Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:12:14 +0100 |
| |
On 10/03/21 23:24, Ben Gardon wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:14 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 10/03/21 01:30, Sean Christopherson wrote: >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c >>>> index 50ef757c5586..f0c99fa04ef2 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c >>>> @@ -323,7 +323,18 @@ static void handle_removed_tdp_mmu_page(struct kvm *kvm, u64 *pt, >>>> cpu_relax(); >>>> } >>>> } else { >>>> + /* >>>> + * If the SPTE is not MMU-present, there is no backing >>>> + * page associated with the SPTE and so no side effects >>>> + * that need to be recorded, and exclusive ownership of >>>> + * mmu_lock ensures the SPTE can't be made present. >>>> + * Note, zapping MMIO SPTEs is also unnecessary as they >>>> + * are guarded by the memslots generation, not by being >>>> + * unreachable. >>>> + */ >>>> old_child_spte = READ_ONCE(*sptep); >>>> + if (!is_shadow_present_pte(old_child_spte)) >>>> + continue; >>>> /* >>>> * Marking the SPTE as a removed SPTE is not > > This optimization also makes me think we could also skip the > __handle_changed_spte call in the read mode case if the SPTE change > was !PRESENT -> REMOVED. > Yes, I think so. It should be a separate patch anyway, so I've queued this one.
Paolo
| |