> On 13 Oct 2018, at 17:53, lantianyu1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu....@microsoft.com>
>
> This patch is to add wrapper functions for tlb_remote_flush_with_range
> callback.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu....@microsoft.com>
> ---
> Change sicne V3:
> Remove code of updating "tlbs_dirty"
> Change since V2:
> Fix comment in the kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_range()
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> index c73d9f650de7..ff656d85903a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> @@ -264,6 +264,46 @@ static void mmu_spte_set(u64 *sptep, u64 spte);
> static union kvm_mmu_page_role
> kvm_mmu_calc_root_page_role(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>
> +
> +static inline bool kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range(void)
> +{
> + return kvm_x86_ops->tlb_remote_flush_with_range;
> +}
Seems that kvm_available_flush_tlb_with_range() is not used in this patch…
> +
> +static void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_range(struct kvm *kvm,
> + struct kvm_tlb_range *range)
> +{
> + int ret = -ENOTSUPP;
> +
> + if (range && kvm_x86_ops->tlb_remote_flush_with_range)
> + ret = kvm_x86_ops->tlb_remote_flush_with_range(kvm, range);
> +
> + if (ret)
> + kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
> +}
> +
> +static void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_list(struct kvm *kvm,
> + struct list_head *flush_list)
> +{
> + struct kvm_tlb_range range;
> +
> + range.flush_list = flush_list;
> +
> + kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_range(kvm, &range);
> +}
> +
> +static void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_address(struct kvm *kvm,
> + u64 start_gfn, u64 pages)
> +{
> + struct kvm_tlb_range range;
> +
> + range.start_gfn = start_gfn;
> + range.pages = pages;
> + range.flush_list = NULL;
> +
> + kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_range(kvm, &range);
> +}
> +
> void kvm_mmu_set_mmio_spte_mask(u64 mmio_mask, u64 mmio_value)
> {
> BUG_ON((mmio_mask & mmio_value) != mmio_value);
> --
> 2.14.4
>
