Re: [RFC PATCH v2 22/23] KVM: TDX: Handle Dynamic PAMT on page split
From: Vishal Annapurve
Date: Thu Aug 14 2025 - 01:31:55 EST
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 2:46 AM Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> +static struct page *tdx_alloc_pamt_page_split(void *data)
> +{
> + struct kvm *kvm = data;
> + void *p;
> +
> + p = kvm_mmu_memory_cache_alloc(&kvm->arch.pamt_page_cache);
> + return virt_to_page(p);
> +}
> +
> static int tdx_spte_demote_private_spte(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn,
> - enum pg_level level, struct page *page)
> + enum pg_level level, struct page *page,
> + kvm_pfn_t pfn_for_gfn)
> {
> int tdx_level = pg_level_to_tdx_sept_level(level);
> + hpa_t hpa = pfn_to_hpa(pfn_for_gfn);
> struct kvm_tdx *kvm_tdx = to_kvm_tdx(kvm);
> gpa_t gpa = gfn_to_gpa(gfn);
> u64 err, entry, level_state;
> + LIST_HEAD(pamt_pages);
> +
> + tdx_pamt_get(page, PG_LEVEL_4K, tdx_alloc_pamt_page_split, kvm);
This invocation needs a return value check.
> + tdx_alloc_pamt_pages(&pamt_pages, tdx_alloc_pamt_page_split, kvm);
IIUC tdx_pamt_get() will result in pamt_pages allocation above, so
this step is not needed.
>
> err = tdh_mem_page_demote(&kvm_tdx->td, gpa, tdx_level, page,
> - NULL, &entry, &level_state);
> + &pamt_pages, &entry, &level_state);
>
> if (unlikely(tdx_operand_busy(err))) {
> tdx_no_vcpus_enter_start(kvm);
> err = tdh_mem_page_demote(&kvm_tdx->td, gpa, tdx_level, page,
> - NULL, &entry, &level_state);
> + &pamt_pages, &entry, &level_state);
> tdx_no_vcpus_enter_stop(kvm);
> }
>
> if (KVM_BUG_ON(err, kvm)) {
> + tdx_free_pamt_pages(&pamt_pages);
If tdx_alloc_pamt_pages() is not needed then this can be dropped as well.
> + tdx_pamt_put(page, PG_LEVEL_4K);
> pr_tdx_error_2(TDH_MEM_PAGE_DEMOTE, err, entry, level_state);
> return -EIO;
> }
> +
> + if (tdx_supports_dynamic_pamt(tdx_sysinfo))
> + atomic_set(tdx_get_pamt_refcount(hpa), PTRS_PER_PMD);
Should this be
atomic_set(tdx_get_pamt_refcount(hpa), PTRS_PER_PMD -1 );
as tdx_pamt_get would have increased the refcount by 1 already above?