On 16.08.2024 20:02, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Fri Jul 26, 2024 at 4:21 PM BST, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> Instead of allocating a monitor table for each vCPU when running in HVM HAP
>> mode, use a per-pCPU monitor table, which gets the per-domain slot updated on
>> guest context switch.
>>
>> This limits the amount of memory used for HVM HAP monitor tables to the
>> amount
>> of active pCPUs, rather than to the number of vCPUs. It also simplifies vCPU
>> allocation and teardown, since the monitor table handling is removed from
>> there.
>>
>> Note the switch to using a per-CPU monitor table is done regardless of
>> whether
>
> s/per-CPU/per-pCPU/
While this adjustment is probably fine (albeit I wouldn't insist), ...
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> @@ -104,6 +104,54 @@ static const char __initconst warning_hvm_fep[] =
>> static bool __initdata opt_altp2m_enabled;
>> boolean_param("altp2m", opt_altp2m_enabled);
>>
>> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(root_pgentry_t *, monitor_pgt);
>> +
>> +static int allocate_cpu_monitor_table(unsigned int cpu)
>
> To avoid ambiguity, could we call these *_pcpu_*() instead?
... I can spot only very few functions with "pcpu" in their names, and I
think we're also pretty clear in distinguishing vcpu from cpu. Therefore
I'd rather not see any p-s added to function names.
Jan
