[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] x86/shadow: re-work 4-level SHADOW_FOREACH_L2E()
On 10/02/2023 7:07 am, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.02.2023 18:26, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 08/02/2023 2:38 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> First of all move the almost loop-invariant condition out of the loop; >>> transform it into an altered loop boundary, noting that the updating of >>> _gl2p is relevant only at one use site, and then also only inside the >>> _code blob it provides. Then drop the shadow_mode_external() part of the >>> condition as being redundant with the is_pv_32bit_domain() check. >>> Further, since the new local variable wants to be "unsigned int", >>> convert the loop induction variable accordingly. Finally also adjust >>> formatting as most code needs touching anyway. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> >> Acked-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> > Thanks. > >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/shadow/multi.c >>> @@ -861,23 +861,22 @@ do { >>> /* 64-bit l2: touch all entries except for PAE compat guests. */ >>> #define SHADOW_FOREACH_L2E(_sl2mfn, _sl2e, _gl2p, _done, _dom, _code) >>> \ >>> do { >>> \ >>> - int _i; >>> \ >>> - int _xen = !shadow_mode_external(_dom); >>> \ >>> + unsigned int _i, _end = SHADOW_L2_PAGETABLE_ENTRIES; >>> \ >>> shadow_l2e_t *_sp = map_domain_page((_sl2mfn)); >>> \ >>> ASSERT_VALID_L2(mfn_to_page(_sl2mfn)->u.sh.type); >>> \ >>> - for ( _i = 0; _i < SHADOW_L2_PAGETABLE_ENTRIES; _i++ ) >>> \ >>> + if ( is_pv_32bit_domain(_dom) /* implies !shadow_mode_external(_dom) >>> */ && \ >> As this is a comment, I think can reasonably be >> >> /* implies !shadow_mode_external */ >> >> which shortens it enough to maintain the RHS justification. > I would certainly have done it without pushing out the escape, but both > alternative variants look worse to me: In > > /* Implies !shadow_mode_external(_dom) */ \ > if ( is_pv_32bit_domain(_dom) && \ > mfn_to_page(_sl2mfn)->u.sh.type != SH_type_l2_64_shadow ) \ > _end = COMPAT_L2_PAGETABLE_FIRST_XEN_SLOT(_dom); \ > > it isn't clear that the comment applies to only the first part of the > conditions, whereas > > if ( /* Implies !shadow_mode_external(_dom): */ \ > is_pv_32bit_domain(_dom) && \ > mfn_to_page(_sl2mfn)->u.sh.type != SH_type_l2_64_shadow ) \ > _end = COMPAT_L2_PAGETABLE_FIRST_XEN_SLOT(_dom); \ > > looks more clumsy to me. I'm not very likely to accept a suggestion to > for the former route; if you think the latter variant is strictly > better than the original, I might make the change while committing. > > Hmm, or maybe > > if ( mfn_to_page(_sl2mfn)->u.sh.type != SH_type_l2_64_shadow ) \ > /* Implies !shadow_mode_external(_dom): */ \ > is_pv_32bit_domain(_dom) && \ > _end = COMPAT_L2_PAGETABLE_FIRST_XEN_SLOT(_dom); \ > > ? I simply meant: - for ( _i = 0; _i < SHADOW_L2_PAGETABLE_ENTRIES; _i++ ) \ + if ( is_pv_32bit_domain(_dom) /* implies !shadow_mode_external */ && \ (If this renderers properly.) It is not important for the comment to be syntactically valid C, especially as you're saying one predicate implies the other. ~Andrew
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |