Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/altp2m: propagate ept.ad changes to all active altp2ms

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 28.09.18 at 13:55, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -1218,34 +1219,67 @@ static void ept_tlb_flush(struct p2m_domain *p2m)
>      ept_sync_domain_mask(p2m, p2m->domain->dirty_cpumask);
>  }
>  
> +static void ept_set_ad_sync(struct p2m_domain *p2m, int value)

Can the second parameter be bool please (and the true/false
arguments in the callers)?

> +{
> +    struct domain *d = p2m->domain;
> +    unsigned int i;
> +
> +    if ( likely(!altp2m_active(d)) )
> +    {
> +        p2m_lock(p2m);
> +        p2m->ept.ad = value;
> +        p2m_unlock(p2m);
> +
> +        return;
> +    }

Why would you want to skip updating the host p2m's flag when
altp2m is active?

> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m.c
> @@ -360,11 +360,7 @@ void p2m_enable_hardware_log_dirty(struct domain *d)
>      struct p2m_domain *p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(d);
>  
>      if ( p2m->enable_hardware_log_dirty )
> -    {
> -        p2m_lock(p2m);
>          p2m->enable_hardware_log_dirty(p2m);
> -        p2m_unlock(p2m);
> -    }
>  }
>  
>  void p2m_disable_hardware_log_dirty(struct domain *d)
> @@ -372,11 +368,7 @@ void p2m_disable_hardware_log_dirty(struct domain *d)
>      struct p2m_domain *p2m = p2m_get_hostp2m(d);
>  
>      if ( p2m->disable_hardware_log_dirty )
> -    {
> -        p2m_lock(p2m);
>          p2m->disable_hardware_log_dirty(p2m);
> -        p2m_unlock(p2m);
> -    }
>  }

I don't understand how this removal can be correct.

Jan



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