[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH for 4.20? v3 1/3] xen/riscv: implement software page table walking
On 2/10/25 5:32 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.02.2025 14:13, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:--- a/xen/arch/riscv/pt.c +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/pt.c @@ -185,6 +185,57 @@ static int pt_next_level(bool alloc_tbl, pte_t **table, unsigned int offset) return XEN_TABLE_NORMAL; } +/* + * _pt_walk() performs software page table walking and returns the pte_t of + * a leaf node or the leaf-most not-present pte_t if no leaf node is found + * for further analysis. + * Additionally, _pt_walk() returns the level of the found pte.That's optional, which I think wants expressing here.+ */ +static pte_t *_pt_walk(vaddr_t va, unsigned int *pte_level) +{ + const mfn_t root = get_root_page(); + unsigned int level; + pte_t *table; + + DECLARE_OFFSETS(offsets, va); + + table = map_table(root);This mapping operation doesn't look to have a counterpart. Aiui ...+ /* + * Find `table` of an entry which corresponds to `va` by iterating for each + * page level and checking if the entry points to a next page table or + * to a page. + * + * Two cases are possible: + * - ret == XEN_TABLE_SUPER_PAGE means that the entry was found; + * (Despite the name) XEN_TABLE_SUPER_PAGE also covers 4K mappings. If + * pt_next_level() is called for page table level 0, it results in the + * entry being a pointer to a leaf node, thereby returning + * XEN_TABLE_SUPER_PAGE, despite of the fact this leaf covers 4k mapping. + * - ret == XEN_TABLE_MAP_NONE means that requested `va` wasn't actually + * mapped. + */ + for ( level = HYP_PT_ROOT_LEVEL; ; --level ) + { + int ret = pt_next_level(false, &table, offsets[level]);... the mapping may be replaced here, but a new mapping will then still be held by this function and ...+ if ( ret == XEN_TABLE_MAP_NONE || ret == XEN_TABLE_SUPER_PAGE ) + break; + + ASSERT(level); + } + + if ( pte_level ) + *pte_level = level; + + return table + offsets[level]; +}... the final one then be transferred to the caller.+pte_t pt_walk(vaddr_t va, unsigned int *pte_level) +{ + return *_pt_walk(va, pte_level); +}Hence aiui there needs to be an unmap operation here. Agree, it should be an unmap here. I will update that in the next patch version. Thanks. ~ Oleksii
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |