[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V7 2/5] x86/mm: allocate logdirty_ranges for altp2ms
On 11/20/18 11:05 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 19.11.18 at 18:26, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> For now, only do allocation/deallocation; keeping them in sync >> will be done in subsequent patches. >> >> Logdirty synchronization will only be done for active altp2ms; >> so allocate logdirty rangesets (copying the host logdirty >> rangeset) when an altp2m is activated, and free it when >> deactivated. >> >> Write a helper function to do altp2m activiation (appropriately >> handling failures). Also, refactor p2m_reset_altp2m() so that it >> can be used to remove redundant codepaths, fixing the locking >> while we’re at it. > > Perhaps this should have been a separate patch again, such > that e.g. ... > >> +static void p2m_reset_altp2m(struct domain *d, unsigned int idx, >> + enum altp2m_reset_type reset_type) >> +{ >> + struct p2m_domain *p2m; >> + >> + ASSERT(idx < MAX_ALTP2M); >> + p2m = d->arch.altp2m_p2m[idx]; >> + >> + p2m_lock(p2m); >> + >> + p2m_flush_table_locked(p2m); >> + >> + if ( reset_type == ALTP2M_DEACTIVATE ) >> + p2m_free_logdirty(p2m); >> + >> + /* Uninit and reinit ept to force TLB shootdown */ >> + ept_p2m_uninit(p2m); >> + ept_p2m_init(p2m); >> + >> + p2m->min_remapped_gfn = gfn_x(INVALID_GFN); >> + p2m->max_remapped_gfn = 0; > > ... the addition of these can be properly associated with either > part of the change. Looking at the code you remove from e.g. > p2m_flush_altp2m() it's not part of the refactoring, but of what > this patch's actual purpose is. But this is guesswork of mine > without the split and without the addition getting explained, > not the least because this getting moved here from the original > instance of the function might also mean that it's part of the > refactoring, but would then need to be done only in the > ALTP2M_RESET case. If you mean that p2m->min_remapped_gfn = gfn_x(INVALID_GFN); and p2m->max_remapped_gfn = 0; should only happen on the ALTP2M_RESET case, while that is technically true (and should follow from a verbatim refactoring), George has pointed out that the assignments are in that case unnecessary but harmless, and so the conditional is not worth it. I can add the if and treat the RESET case explicitly if that's required. Thanks, Razvan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |