mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	 James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	 Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
	 Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org,  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v8 01/11] KVM: Remove kvm_handle_hva_range helper functions
Date: Tue,  5 Nov 2024 18:43:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241105184333.2305744-2-jthoughton@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241105184333.2305744-1-jthoughton@google.com>

kvm_handle_hva_range is only used by the young notifiers. In a later
patch, it will be even further tied to the young notifiers. Instead of
renaming kvm_handle_hva_range to something like
kvm_handle_hva_range_young, simply remove kvm_handle_hva_range. This
seems slightly more readable, though there is slightly more code
duplication.

Finally, rename __kvm_handle_hva_range to kvm_handle_hva_range, now that
the name is available.

Suggested-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Signed-off-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>
---
 virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 27186b06518a..8b234a9acdb3 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -551,8 +551,8 @@ static void kvm_null_fn(void)
 	     node;							     \
 	     node = interval_tree_iter_next(node, start, last))	     \
 
-static __always_inline kvm_mn_ret_t __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
-							   const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range *range)
+static __always_inline kvm_mn_ret_t kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
+							 const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range *range)
 {
 	struct kvm_mmu_notifier_return r = {
 		.ret = false,
@@ -628,33 +628,6 @@ static __always_inline kvm_mn_ret_t __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
 	return r;
 }
 
-static __always_inline int kvm_handle_hva_range(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
-						unsigned long start,
-						unsigned long end,
-						gfn_handler_t handler,
-						bool flush_on_ret)
-{
-	struct kvm *kvm = mmu_notifier_to_kvm(mn);
-	const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range range = {
-		.start		= start,
-		.end		= end,
-		.handler	= handler,
-		.on_lock	= (void *)kvm_null_fn,
-		.flush_on_ret	= flush_on_ret,
-		.may_block	= false,
-	};
-
-	return __kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &range).ret;
-}
-
-static __always_inline int kvm_handle_hva_range_no_flush(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
-							 unsigned long start,
-							 unsigned long end,
-							 gfn_handler_t handler)
-{
-	return kvm_handle_hva_range(mn, start, end, handler, false);
-}
-
 void kvm_mmu_invalidate_begin(struct kvm *kvm)
 {
 	lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
@@ -747,7 +720,7 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
 	 * that guest memory has been reclaimed.  This needs to be done *after*
 	 * dropping mmu_lock, as x86's reclaim path is slooooow.
 	 */
-	if (__kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &hva_range).found_memslot)
+	if (kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &hva_range).found_memslot)
 		kvm_arch_guest_memory_reclaimed(kvm);
 
 	return 0;
@@ -793,7 +766,7 @@ static void kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
 	};
 	bool wake;
 
-	__kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &hva_range);
+	kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &hva_range);
 
 	/* Pairs with the increment in range_start(). */
 	spin_lock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock);
@@ -815,10 +788,20 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_clear_flush_young(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
 					      unsigned long start,
 					      unsigned long end)
 {
+	struct kvm *kvm = mmu_notifier_to_kvm(mn);
+	const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range range = {
+		.start		= start,
+		.end		= end,
+		.handler	= kvm_age_gfn,
+		.on_lock	= (void *)kvm_null_fn,
+		.flush_on_ret	=
+			!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_ELIDE_TLB_FLUSH_IF_YOUNG),
+		.may_block	= false,
+	};
+
 	trace_kvm_age_hva(start, end);
 
-	return kvm_handle_hva_range(mn, start, end, kvm_age_gfn,
-				    !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_ELIDE_TLB_FLUSH_IF_YOUNG));
+	return kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &range).ret;
 }
 
 static int kvm_mmu_notifier_clear_young(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
@@ -826,6 +809,16 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_clear_young(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
 					unsigned long start,
 					unsigned long end)
 {
+	struct kvm *kvm = mmu_notifier_to_kvm(mn);
+	const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range range = {
+		.start		= start,
+		.end		= end,
+		.handler	= kvm_age_gfn,
+		.on_lock	= (void *)kvm_null_fn,
+		.flush_on_ret	= false,
+		.may_block	= false,
+	};
+
 	trace_kvm_age_hva(start, end);
 
 	/*
@@ -841,17 +834,26 @@ static int kvm_mmu_notifier_clear_young(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
 	 * cadence. If we find this inaccurate, we might come up with a
 	 * more sophisticated heuristic later.
 	 */
-	return kvm_handle_hva_range_no_flush(mn, start, end, kvm_age_gfn);
+	return kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &range).ret;
 }
 
 static int kvm_mmu_notifier_test_young(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
 				       struct mm_struct *mm,
 				       unsigned long address)
 {
+	struct kvm *kvm = mmu_notifier_to_kvm(mn);
+	const struct kvm_mmu_notifier_range range = {
+		.start		= address,
+		.end		= address + 1,
+		.handler	= kvm_test_age_gfn,
+		.on_lock	= (void *)kvm_null_fn,
+		.flush_on_ret	= false,
+		.may_block	= false,
+	};
+
 	trace_kvm_test_age_hva(address);
 
-	return kvm_handle_hva_range_no_flush(mn, address, address + 1,
-					     kvm_test_age_gfn);
+	return kvm_handle_hva_range(kvm, &range).ret;
 }
 
 static void kvm_mmu_notifier_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
-- 
2.47.0.199.ga7371fff76-goog


  reply	other threads:[~2024-11-05 18:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-11-05 18:43 [PATCH v8 00/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Age sptes locklessly James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:43 ` James Houghton [this message]
2025-01-10 22:15   ` [PATCH v8 01/11] KVM: Remove kvm_handle_hva_range helper functions Sean Christopherson
2025-01-27 19:50     ` James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:43 ` [PATCH v8 02/11] KVM: Add lockless memslot walk to KVM James Houghton
2025-01-10 22:26   ` Sean Christopherson
2025-01-27 19:51     ` James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:43 ` [PATCH v8 03/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Factor out spte atomic bit clearing routine James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:45   ` Yu Zhao
2025-01-10 22:34   ` Sean Christopherson
2025-01-27 19:51     ` James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:43 ` [PATCH v8 04/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Relax locking for kvm_test_age_gfn and kvm_age_gfn James Houghton
2024-11-06  8:22   ` kernel test robot
2024-11-08  3:00     ` James Houghton
2024-11-08 22:45       ` Sean Christopherson
2024-11-11 14:45         ` James Houghton
2025-01-10 22:47   ` Sean Christopherson
2025-01-27 19:52     ` James Houghton
2025-01-27 19:57   ` James Houghton
2025-01-27 20:09     ` James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:43 ` [PATCH v8 05/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Rearrange kvm_{test_,}age_gfn James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:46   ` Yu Zhao
2025-01-10 22:59   ` Sean Christopherson
2025-01-27 19:58     ` James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:43 ` [PATCH v8 06/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Only check gfn age in shadow MMU if indirect_shadow_pages > 0 James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:49   ` Yu Zhao
2025-01-10 23:05   ` Sean Christopherson
2025-01-27 19:58     ` James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:43 ` [PATCH v8 07/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Refactor low level rmap helpers to prep for walking w/o mmu_lock James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:43 ` [PATCH v8 08/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Add infrastructure to allow walking rmaps outside of mmu_lock James Houghton
2025-01-10 23:18   ` Sean Christopherson
2025-01-27 21:42     ` James Houghton
2025-01-27 21:52   ` James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:43 ` [PATCH v8 09/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Add support for lockless walks of rmap SPTEs James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:43 ` [PATCH v8 10/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Support rmap walks without holding mmu_lock when aging gfns James Houghton
2024-11-05 18:43 ` [PATCH v8 11/11] KVM: selftests: Add multi-gen LRU aging to access_tracking_perf_test James Houghton
2025-01-11  0:12   ` Sean Christopherson
2025-02-03 22:46     ` James Houghton
2025-01-11  0:21   ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-11-05 19:21 ` [PATCH v8 00/11] KVM: x86/mmu: Age sptes locklessly Yu Zhao
2024-11-05 19:28   ` Yu Zhao

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20241105184333.2305744-2-jthoughton@google.com \
    --to=jthoughton@google.com \
    --cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
    --cc=dmatlack@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=weixugc@google.com \
    --cc=yuzhao@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome