Re: [PATCH v4 08/17] KVM: TDX: Adjust the topup count of DPAMT page pairs for splitting S-EPT

["Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>]

On Mon, 2026-10-19 at 09:59 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 01:21:14AM +0800, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > On Thu, 2026-10-15 at 12:47 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > > The point of spelling it all out was to make the contact clear and the
> > > > implementation doesn't have to assume anything about the callers.
> > > Hmm, but it's hard for the caller to know if private_page is true.
> > > We should avoid leaking TDX specific knowledge to KVM MMU, right?
> > 
> > Wait, why won't the caller won't know if it might map a new private page? This
> > is basically to cover the +1 part of the "+ 1 -1" in the calculation. I was
> > thinking to set it to true for normal ept violation (like an accept) and false
> > for split.
> In TDX's .topup_external_cache() hook, tdx_topup_external_pamt_cache() always
> needs to allocate DPAMT pages for guest private pages, even for the split case.
> 
> However, from KVM MMU's perspective, it is unnatural to specify "private_page"
> as true when tdp_mmu_alloc_sp_for_split() is preparing the mid-level page table
> page.
> 
> So, I think we should keep the current convention of just specifying
> min_nr_spts, and let the TDX-specific tdx_topup_external_pamt_cache() account
> for the +1 part for guest private pages, which is invisible and should not be
> exposed to KVM MMU.
> 
> So, what about
> 
> topup(bool with_root_spt, int min_nr_spts) ?

Hmm, ok I think I see what you are saying. Because each 4KB page will be
confined to a 2MB aligned region, we need at most 1 extra page pair. Not 512.
But the core MMU should not know this at all. Hmmm....

Yea let's go with your suggestion. Can you share the implementation here first
though so we can close it without risk of more respins?