From f285c633cb6d68d2bf3a8ad65bee3835aac9886c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ben Gardon Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 11:45:59 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] kvm: mmu: Used range based flushing in slot_handle_level_range Replace kvm_flush_remote_tlbs with kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_address in slot_handle_level_range. When range based flushes are not enabled kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_address falls back to kvm_flush_remote_tlbs. This changes the behavior of many functions that indirectly use slot_handle_level_range, iff the range based flushes are enabled. The only potential problem I see with this is that kvm->tlbs_dirty will be cleared less often, however the only caller of slot_handle_level_range that checks tlbs_dirty is kvm_mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start which checks it and does a kvm_flush_remote_tlbs after calling kvm_unmap_hva_range anyway. Tested: Ran all kvm-unit-tests on a Intel Haswell machine with and without this patch. The patch introduced no new failures. Signed-off-by: Ben Gardon Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini --- arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c index 5a9981465fbb..eee455a8a612 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c @@ -5526,7 +5526,9 @@ slot_handle_level_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot, if (need_resched() || spin_needbreak(&kvm->mmu_lock)) { if (flush && lock_flush_tlb) { - kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm); + kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_address(kvm, + start_gfn, + iterator.gfn - start_gfn + 1); flush = false; } cond_resched_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock); @@ -5534,7 +5536,8 @@ slot_handle_level_range(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot, } if (flush && lock_flush_tlb) { - kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm); + kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_address(kvm, start_gfn, + end_gfn - start_gfn + 1); flush = false; }