Commit 2855f982 authored by Sean Christopherson's avatar Sean Christopherson Committed by Paolo Bonzini

KVM: x86/mmu: Expand on the comment in kvm_vcpu_ad_need_write_protect()

Expand the comment about need to use write-protection for nested EPT
when PML is enabled to clarify that the tagging is a nop when PML is
_not_ enabled.  Without the clarification, omitting the PML check looks
wrong at first^Wfifth glance.
Signed-off-by: default avatarSean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Message-Id: <20210213005015.1651772-8-seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
parent c3bb9a20
...@@ -84,7 +84,10 @@ static inline bool kvm_vcpu_ad_need_write_protect(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) ...@@ -84,7 +84,10 @@ static inline bool kvm_vcpu_ad_need_write_protect(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
* When using the EPT page-modification log, the GPAs in the log * When using the EPT page-modification log, the GPAs in the log
* would come from L2 rather than L1. Therefore, we need to rely * would come from L2 rather than L1. Therefore, we need to rely
* on write protection to record dirty pages. This also bypasses * on write protection to record dirty pages. This also bypasses
* PML, since writes now result in a vmexit. * PML, since writes now result in a vmexit. Note, this helper will
* tag SPTEs as needing write-protection even if PML is disabled or
* unsupported, but that's ok because the tag is consumed if and only
* if PML is enabled. Omit the PML check to save a few uops.
*/ */
return vcpu->arch.mmu == &vcpu->arch.guest_mmu; return vcpu->arch.mmu == &vcpu->arch.guest_mmu;
} }
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment