On Tue, Jul 30, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

An interesting evolution of the API could be to pass a struct kvm_follow_pfn
pointer to {,__}kvm_faultin_pfn() and __gfn_to_page() (the "constructors");
and on the other side to kvm_release_faultin_page() and
kvm_release_page_*().  The struct kvm_follow_pfn could be embedded in the
(x86) kvm_page_fault and (generic) kvm_host_map structs.  But certainly not
as part of this already huge work.

For kvm_faultin_pfn(), my hope/dream is to make kvm_page_fault a common struct,
with an arch member (a la kvm_vcpu), and get to something like:

  static int arch_page_fault_handler(...)
  {
	struct kvm_page_fault fault = {
		<const common stuff>,

		.arch.xxx = <arch stuff>,
	};

	<arch code>


	r = kvm_faultin_pfn();
	
	...
  }

In theory, that would allow moving the kvm->mmu_invalidate_seq handling, memslot
lookup, etc. into kvm_faultin_pfn(), or maybe another helper that is invoked to
setup the fault structure.  I.e. it would give us a way to drive convergence for
at least some of the fault handling logic, without having to tackle gory arch
details, at least not right away.