From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FSL_HELO_FAKE, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B658C4320A for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:00:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55AE360F22 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:00:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229922AbhG2RAe (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:00:34 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42608 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229565AbhG2RAc (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:00:32 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B67C5C061765 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id z4so7764037wrv.11 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:00:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rFgImdL4oRnQoKBA5pI3AwMwu/TF6E4dvPNBUaLQNFQ=; b=Ym5Ufkl/exEhxT3LXpkyNJPvberJTQmdCqua9HnSvE4M1l834pSV3ErwW2z0EyYWzN 25tlJDAdf4Z8milEdWy0tk01sdQ6hArqX5HIewWnMc4zSAriwLR/66Pb62qomNeOfoZ9 uHH4jP7oMOLk7iBAtSooAcqjMGyBacUbzwf2prksRZN34Etp9YS6CxBG1OmhWxdt5iwv Cz0hTGe2SZ6LQAjhb/19b6Onsoqj3n+calSmMc1PqDOdl6S5v2E+DIvW1JqZultHFGaZ e0HJto+/7kXHwepNw+rHHp76Vd4deu1YTEZU2A+fO6L5MjxxixVrUs1tBlqHMKsC19AF Ywgw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rFgImdL4oRnQoKBA5pI3AwMwu/TF6E4dvPNBUaLQNFQ=; b=qytdJkCgporMPKELFDojbGRHGh0erbYRvXmK2SU6rjTQOdhqztm8dXDqyBDVl4IC2X XUNdCNVLj8wBl99EMI/km9kJv5aZTPwc2IO8vB7WN34IfGwcF6ChI/4nw7dsaTokN7Kp amIK0QB7tTEGqDTnyfNx5ERYG6MktjpfZgy5JsqzrgMKprch+ulp+TeAdNoOLj3gFdDI Od0+AxC8GGki0eh8wOT3t0DJC5v/bNDYgXNt/oUVfigLvXbrZ/l9IMw1NAdmuzXke1LU IZpMVxWANKv4+w5W0gcLyIvIUOkRqzWGe+xPD+w1gavYjbsgEwBd2WIYGcNtWSuGPsgv Wmzg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531EiLg996htbKWcDoX5GujABkoQ2nM/s2O2sPZYUAExA3rZRQ18 rH3+iK7HYDVa9PBdFKsV04j+lQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyFz2hml+WnVbZ7VNzv3kjo6OC8XSEJ53KL7oluYjYUSeypg9pkHqCQ9bSEkCwBjaOkz9WNEQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:53ca:: with SMTP id a10mr4243003wrw.197.1627578027075; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2a00:79e0:d:210:293a:bc89:7514:5218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q22sm3841194wmc.16.2021.07.29.10.00.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 18:00:23 +0100 From: Quentin Perret To: David Brazdil Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Marc Zyngier , James Morse , Alexandru Elisei , Suzuki K Poulose , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: Minor optimization of range_is_memory Message-ID: References: <20210728153232.1018911-1-dbrazdil@google.com> <20210728153232.1018911-3-dbrazdil@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210728153232.1018911-3-dbrazdil@google.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 28 Jul 2021 at 15:32:32 (+0000), David Brazdil wrote: > Currently range_is_memory finds the corresponding struct memblock_region > for both the lower and upper bounds of the given address range with two > rounds of binary search, and then checks that the two memblocks are the > same. Simplify this by only doing binary search on the lower bound and > then checking that the upper bound is in the same memblock. > > Signed-off-by: David Brazdil > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 ++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c > index a6ce991b1467..37d73af69634 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c > @@ -189,13 +189,18 @@ static bool find_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range) > return false; > } > > +static bool is_in_mem_range(phys_addr_t addr, struct kvm_mem_range *range) > +{ Nit: addr@ could be u64 for consistency -- struct kvm_mem_range holds IPAs in general. > + return range->start <= addr && addr < range->end; > +} > + > static bool range_is_memory(u64 start, u64 end) > { > - struct kvm_mem_range r1, r2; > + struct kvm_mem_range r; > > - if (!find_mem_range(start, &r1) || !find_mem_range(end - 1, &r2)) > + if (!find_mem_range(start, &r)) > return false; > - if (r1.start != r2.start) > + if (!is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r)) > return false; > > return true; Nit: maybe drop the second if and simplify to: return is_in_mem_range(end - 1, &r); With that: Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret Thanks, Quentin