Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6] x86/altp2m: Aggregate get entry and populate into common funcs

[Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/14/19 6:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 23.04.19 at 16:30, <aisaila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
> > @@ -478,6 +478,43 @@ void p2m_unlock_and_tlb_flush(struct p2m_domain *p2m)
> >           mm_write_unlock(&p2m->lock);
> >   }
> >   
> > +int altp2m_get_effective_entry(struct p2m_domain *ap2m, gfn_t gfn, mfn_t *mfn,
> > +                               p2m_type_t *t, p2m_access_t *a,
> > +                               bool prepopulate)
> > +{
> > +    *mfn = ap2m->get_entry(ap2m, gfn, t, a, 0, NULL, NULL);
> > +
> > +    /* Check host p2m if no valid entry in alternate */
> > +    if ( !mfn_valid(*mfn) && !p2m_is_hostp2m(ap2m) )
> > +    {
> > +        struct p2m_domain *hp2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(ap2m->domain);
> > +        unsigned int page_order;
> > +        int rc;
> > +
> > +        *mfn = __get_gfn_type_access(hp2m, gfn_x(gfn), t, a,
> > +                                     P2M_ALLOC | P2M_UNSHARE, &page_order, 0);
> > +
> > +        rc = -ESRCH;
> > +        if ( !mfn_valid(*mfn) || *t != p2m_ram_rw )
> > +            return rc;
> > +
> > +        /* If this is a superpage, copy that first */
> > +        if ( prepopulate && page_order != PAGE_ORDER_4K )
> > +        {
> > +            unsigned long mask = ~((1UL << page_order) - 1);
> > +            gfn_t gfn_aligned = _gfn(gfn_x(gfn) & mask);
> > +            mfn_t mfn_aligned = _mfn(mfn_x(*mfn) & mask);
> > +
> > +            rc = ap2m->set_entry(ap2m, gfn_aligned, mfn_aligned, page_order, 
> > *t, *a, 1);
> > +            if ( rc )
> > +                return rc;
> > +        }
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +
> >   mfn_t __get_gfn_type_access(struct p2m_domain *p2m, unsigned long gfn_l,
> >                       p2m_type_t *t, p2m_access_t *a, p2m_query_t q,
> >                       unsigned int *page_order, bool_t locked)
> May I ask how the placement of this function was chosen? It looks
> as if all its callers live inside #ifdef CONFIG_HVM sections, just this
> function doesn't (reportedly causing build issues together with
> later changes).
I believe it's just an oversight. I've sent out a patch that hopefully 
fixes this in a satisfactory manner.

Thanks,
Razvan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel