From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933959Ab0KQBij (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:38:39 -0500 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:64927 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933200Ab0KQBii (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:38:38 -0500 Message-ID: <4CE33321.10207@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:42:57 +0800 From: Xiao Guangrong User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcelo Tosatti CC: Avi Kivity , LKML , KVM Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: MMU: don't drop spte if overwrite it from W to RO References: <4CDD173E.8010706@cn.fujitsu.com> <20101116202414.GA24156@amt.cnet> In-Reply-To: <20101116202414.GA24156@amt.cnet> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2010-11-17 09:39:00, Serialize by Router on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2010-11-17 09:39:01, Serialize complete at 2010-11-17 09:39:01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/17/2010 04:24 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 06:30:22PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >> We just need flush tlb if overwrite a writable spte with a read-only one >> >> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong >> --- >> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 19 +++++++++---------- >> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c >> index 4b6d54c..1a93ab4 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c >> @@ -2044,6 +2044,15 @@ static int set_spte(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *sptep, >> if (pte_access & ACC_WRITE_MASK) >> mark_page_dirty(vcpu->kvm, gfn); >> >> + /* >> + * If we overwrite a writable spte with a read-only one, >> + * flush remote TLBs. Otherwise rmap_write_protect will >> + * find a read-only spte, even though the writable spte >> + * might be cached on a CPU's TLB. >> + */ >> + else if (is_writable_pte(*sptep)) >> + ret = 1; >> + > > The return value of set_spte indicates whether the gfn being mapped to > was write protected, not if a TLB flush is necessary. > Yes, i also noticed this and have fixed in the v2 queue, thanks Marcelo!