Message ID | 20230627042639.12636-1-likexu@tencent.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | KVM: x86/mmu: Move the lockdep_assert of mmu_lock to inside clear_dirty_pt_masked() | expand |
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 12:26:39 +0800, Like Xu wrote: > Move the lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock) from the only one caller > kvm_tdp_mmu_clear_dirty_pt_masked() to inside clear_dirty_pt_masked(). > > This change makes it more obvious why it's safe for clear_dirty_pt_masked() > to use the non-atomic (for non-volatile SPTEs) tdp_mmu_clear_spte_bits() > helper. for_each_tdp_mmu_root() does its own lockdep, so the only "loss" > in lockdep coverage is if the list is completely empty. > > [...] Applied to kvm-x86 mmu, thanks! [1/1] KVM: x86/mmu: Move the lockdep_assert of mmu_lock to inside clear_dirty_pt_masked() https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/e19314998321 -- https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/tree/next https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/tree/fixes
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c index 512163d52194..0b4f03bef70e 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c @@ -1600,6 +1600,8 @@ static void clear_dirty_pt_masked(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *root, shadow_dirty_mask; struct tdp_iter iter; + lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock); + rcu_read_lock(); tdp_root_for_each_leaf_pte(iter, root, gfn + __ffs(mask), @@ -1646,7 +1648,6 @@ void kvm_tdp_mmu_clear_dirty_pt_masked(struct kvm *kvm, { struct kvm_mmu_page *root; - lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock); for_each_tdp_mmu_root(kvm, root, slot->as_id) clear_dirty_pt_masked(kvm, root, gfn, mask, wrprot); }