| Message ID | 20190607180544.17241-1-krish.sadhukhan@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | nVMX: Get rid of prepare_vmcs02_early_full and inline its content in the caller | expand |
On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 02:05:44PM -0400, Krish Sadhukhan wrote: > ..as there is no need for a separate function > > Signed-off-by: Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@oracle.com> > Reviewed-by: Karl Heubaum <karl.heubaum@oracle.com> > --- > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 30 +++++++++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c > index f1a69117ac0f..4643eb3a97f7 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c > @@ -1963,28 +1963,24 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02_constant_state(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx) > vmx_set_constant_host_state(vmx); > } > > -static void prepare_vmcs02_early_full(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, > - struct vmcs12 *vmcs12) > -{ > - prepare_vmcs02_constant_state(vmx); > - > - vmcs_write64(VMCS_LINK_POINTER, -1ull); > - > - if (enable_vpid) { > - if (nested_cpu_has_vpid(vmcs12) && vmx->nested.vpid02) > - vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, vmx->nested.vpid02); > - else > - vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, vmx->vpid); > - } > -} > - > static void prepare_vmcs02_early(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12) > { > u32 exec_control, vmcs12_exec_ctrl; > u64 guest_efer = nested_vmx_calc_efer(vmx, vmcs12); > > - if (vmx->nested.dirty_vmcs12 || vmx->nested.hv_evmcs) > - prepare_vmcs02_early_full(vmx, vmcs12); > + if (vmx->nested.dirty_vmcs12 || vmx->nested.hv_evmcs) { > + prepare_vmcs02_constant_state(vmx); > + > + vmcs_write64(VMCS_LINK_POINTER, -1ull); > + > + if (enable_vpid) { > + if (nested_cpu_has_vpid(vmcs12) && vmx->nested.vpid02) > + vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, > + vmx->nested.vpid02); > + else > + vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, vmx->vpid); > + } > + } My vote is to keep the separate helper. I agree that it's a bit superfluous, but I really like having symmetry across the "early" and "late" prepartion flows, i.e. there's value in having both prepare_vmcs02_full() and prepare_vmcs02_early_full(). > > /* > * PIN CONTROLS > -- > 2.20.1 >
On 07/06/19 20:52, Sean Christopherson wrote: > My vote is to keep the separate helper. I agree that it's a bit > superfluous, but I really like having symmetry across the "early" and > "late" prepartion flows, i.e. there's value in having both > prepare_vmcs02_full() and prepare_vmcs02_early_full(). I agree. Paolo
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c index f1a69117ac0f..4643eb3a97f7 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c @@ -1963,28 +1963,24 @@ static void prepare_vmcs02_constant_state(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx) vmx_set_constant_host_state(vmx); } -static void prepare_vmcs02_early_full(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, - struct vmcs12 *vmcs12) -{ - prepare_vmcs02_constant_state(vmx); - - vmcs_write64(VMCS_LINK_POINTER, -1ull); - - if (enable_vpid) { - if (nested_cpu_has_vpid(vmcs12) && vmx->nested.vpid02) - vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, vmx->nested.vpid02); - else - vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, vmx->vpid); - } -} - static void prepare_vmcs02_early(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, struct vmcs12 *vmcs12) { u32 exec_control, vmcs12_exec_ctrl; u64 guest_efer = nested_vmx_calc_efer(vmx, vmcs12); - if (vmx->nested.dirty_vmcs12 || vmx->nested.hv_evmcs) - prepare_vmcs02_early_full(vmx, vmcs12); + if (vmx->nested.dirty_vmcs12 || vmx->nested.hv_evmcs) { + prepare_vmcs02_constant_state(vmx); + + vmcs_write64(VMCS_LINK_POINTER, -1ull); + + if (enable_vpid) { + if (nested_cpu_has_vpid(vmcs12) && vmx->nested.vpid02) + vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, + vmx->nested.vpid02); + else + vmcs_write16(VIRTUAL_PROCESSOR_ID, vmx->vpid); + } + } /* * PIN CONTROLS