From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v7 01/12] KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 16:54:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878ratqw2l.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHc60xM+KsUKxtoqORnpzrRke4T-sob2uLJRMvBKwruipxnpw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 01 Aug 2023 01:42:54 +0100,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 2:42?PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 3:24?AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 03:22:40 +0100,
> > > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() and the associated macro
> > > > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() and
> > > > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS respectively.
> > > > >
> > > > > Making the name plural matches kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() and makes it more
> > > > > clear that this function can affect more than one remote TLB.
> > > > >
> > > > > No functional change intended.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daud? <philmd@linaro.org>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 2 +-
> > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
> > > > > 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > index 04cedf9f8811..9b0ad8f3bf32 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > @@ -896,7 +896,7 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu) {}
> > > > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > > > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > > > >
> > > > > -#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB
> > > > > -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > > > +#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS
> > > > > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > >
> > > > How about making this prototype global? I don't see a point in having
> > > > it per-architecture, specially as you are adding arm64 to that mix in
> > > > the following patch.
> > > >
> > > We can make it global, but I'm not sure what was the intention of the
> > > original author. My guess is that he was following the same style that
> > > we have for some of the other kvm_arch_*() functions
> > > (kvm_arch_free_vm() for example)?
> >
> > Heh, KVM has a *lot* of code that was written with questionable style. I agree
> > with Marc, I can't think of a single reason not to have the definition in common
> > code. Declaring the function doesn't preclude a "static inline" implementation,
> > and we could even keep the prototype under an #ifdef, e.g.
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > index 9d3ac7720da9..5ac64f933547 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm)
> > {
> > return -ENOTSUPP;
> > }
> > +#else
> > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm);
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA
> >
> Thanks for the suggestions; I can go with a common declaration. Along
> with that, do we want to keep defining
> __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS in the arch code that supports it or
> convert it into a CONFIG_?
This isn't something that a user can select, more something that is an
architectural decision. Maybe in a later patch if there is a consensus
around that, but probably not as part of this series.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Cc: "Sean Christopherson" <seanjc@google.com>,
"Oliver Upton" <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
"James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
"Suzuki K Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
"Zenghui Yu" <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
"Anup Patel" <anup@brainfault.org>,
"Atish Patra" <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
"Jing Zhang" <jingzhangos@google.com>,
"Reiji Watanabe" <reijiw@google.com>,
"Colton Lewis" <coltonlewis@google.com>,
"David Matlack" <dmatlack@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Gavin Shan" <gshan@redhat.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>,
"Shaoqin Huang" <shahuang@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/12] KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 16:54:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878ratqw2l.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHc60xM+KsUKxtoqORnpzrRke4T-sob2uLJRMvBKwruipxnpw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 01 Aug 2023 01:42:54 +0100,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 2:42 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 3:24 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 03:22:40 +0100,
> > > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() and the associated macro
> > > > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() and
> > > > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS respectively.
> > > > >
> > > > > Making the name plural matches kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() and makes it more
> > > > > clear that this function can affect more than one remote TLB.
> > > > >
> > > > > No functional change intended.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 2 +-
> > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
> > > > > 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > index 04cedf9f8811..9b0ad8f3bf32 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > @@ -896,7 +896,7 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu) {}
> > > > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > > > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > > > >
> > > > > -#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB
> > > > > -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > > > +#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS
> > > > > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > >
> > > > How about making this prototype global? I don't see a point in having
> > > > it per-architecture, specially as you are adding arm64 to that mix in
> > > > the following patch.
> > > >
> > > We can make it global, but I'm not sure what was the intention of the
> > > original author. My guess is that he was following the same style that
> > > we have for some of the other kvm_arch_*() functions
> > > (kvm_arch_free_vm() for example)?
> >
> > Heh, KVM has a *lot* of code that was written with questionable style. I agree
> > with Marc, I can't think of a single reason not to have the definition in common
> > code. Declaring the function doesn't preclude a "static inline" implementation,
> > and we could even keep the prototype under an #ifdef, e.g.
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > index 9d3ac7720da9..5ac64f933547 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm)
> > {
> > return -ENOTSUPP;
> > }
> > +#else
> > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm);
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA
> >
> Thanks for the suggestions; I can go with a common declaration. Along
> with that, do we want to keep defining
> __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS in the arch code that supports it or
> convert it into a CONFIG_?
This isn't something that a user can select, more something that is an
architectural decision. Maybe in a later patch if there is a consensus
around that, but probably not as part of this series.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Cc: "Sean Christopherson" <seanjc@google.com>,
"Oliver Upton" <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
"James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
"Suzuki K Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
"Zenghui Yu" <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
"Anup Patel" <anup@brainfault.org>,
"Atish Patra" <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
"Jing Zhang" <jingzhangos@google.com>,
"Reiji Watanabe" <reijiw@google.com>,
"Colton Lewis" <coltonlewis@google.com>,
"David Matlack" <dmatlack@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Gavin Shan" <gshan@redhat.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>,
"Shaoqin Huang" <shahuang@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/12] KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 16:54:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878ratqw2l.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHc60xM+KsUKxtoqORnpzrRke4T-sob2uLJRMvBKwruipxnpw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 01 Aug 2023 01:42:54 +0100,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 2:42 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 3:24 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 03:22:40 +0100,
> > > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() and the associated macro
> > > > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() and
> > > > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS respectively.
> > > > >
> > > > > Making the name plural matches kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() and makes it more
> > > > > clear that this function can affect more than one remote TLB.
> > > > >
> > > > > No functional change intended.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 2 +-
> > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
> > > > > 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > index 04cedf9f8811..9b0ad8f3bf32 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > @@ -896,7 +896,7 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu) {}
> > > > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > > > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > > > >
> > > > > -#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB
> > > > > -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > > > +#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS
> > > > > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > >
> > > > How about making this prototype global? I don't see a point in having
> > > > it per-architecture, specially as you are adding arm64 to that mix in
> > > > the following patch.
> > > >
> > > We can make it global, but I'm not sure what was the intention of the
> > > original author. My guess is that he was following the same style that
> > > we have for some of the other kvm_arch_*() functions
> > > (kvm_arch_free_vm() for example)?
> >
> > Heh, KVM has a *lot* of code that was written with questionable style. I agree
> > with Marc, I can't think of a single reason not to have the definition in common
> > code. Declaring the function doesn't preclude a "static inline" implementation,
> > and we could even keep the prototype under an #ifdef, e.g.
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > index 9d3ac7720da9..5ac64f933547 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm)
> > {
> > return -ENOTSUPP;
> > }
> > +#else
> > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm);
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA
> >
> Thanks for the suggestions; I can go with a common declaration. Along
> with that, do we want to keep defining
> __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS in the arch code that supports it or
> convert it into a CONFIG_?
This isn't something that a user can select, more something that is an
architectural decision. Maybe in a later patch if there is a consensus
around that, but probably not as part of this series.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Cc: "Sean Christopherson" <seanjc@google.com>,
"Oliver Upton" <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
"James Morse" <james.morse@arm.com>,
"Suzuki K Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
"Zenghui Yu" <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
"Anup Patel" <anup@brainfault.org>,
"Atish Patra" <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
"Jing Zhang" <jingzhangos@google.com>,
"Reiji Watanabe" <reijiw@google.com>,
"Colton Lewis" <coltonlewis@google.com>,
"David Matlack" <dmatlack@google.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Gavin Shan" <gshan@redhat.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>,
"Shaoqin Huang" <shahuang@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/12] KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 16:54:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878ratqw2l.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHc60xM+KsUKxtoqORnpzrRke4T-sob2uLJRMvBKwruipxnpw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 01 Aug 2023 01:42:54 +0100,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 2:42 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 3:24 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 03:22:40 +0100,
> > > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() and the associated macro
> > > > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() and
> > > > > __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS respectively.
> > > > >
> > > > > Making the name plural matches kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() and makes it more
> > > > > clear that this function can affect more than one remote TLB.
> > > > >
> > > > > No functional change intended.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 2 +-
> > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 4 ++--
> > > > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
> > > > > 5 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > index 04cedf9f8811..9b0ad8f3bf32 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > > @@ -896,7 +896,7 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu) {}
> > > > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > > > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> > > > >
> > > > > -#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB
> > > > > -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > > > +#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS
> > > > > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > >
> > > > How about making this prototype global? I don't see a point in having
> > > > it per-architecture, specially as you are adding arm64 to that mix in
> > > > the following patch.
> > > >
> > > We can make it global, but I'm not sure what was the intention of the
> > > original author. My guess is that he was following the same style that
> > > we have for some of the other kvm_arch_*() functions
> > > (kvm_arch_free_vm() for example)?
> >
> > Heh, KVM has a *lot* of code that was written with questionable style. I agree
> > with Marc, I can't think of a single reason not to have the definition in common
> > code. Declaring the function doesn't preclude a "static inline" implementation,
> > and we could even keep the prototype under an #ifdef, e.g.
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > index 9d3ac7720da9..5ac64f933547 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm)
> > {
> > return -ENOTSUPP;
> > }
> > +#else
> > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm);
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA
> >
> Thanks for the suggestions; I can go with a common declaration. Along
> with that, do we want to keep defining
> __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS in the arch code that supports it or
> convert it into a CONFIG_?
This isn't something that a user can select, more something that is an
architectural decision. Maybe in a later patch if there is a consensus
around that, but probably not as part of this series.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-02 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 228+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-22 2:22 [PATCH v7 00/12] KVM: arm64: Add support for FEAT_TLBIRANGE Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 01/12] KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-27 10:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 17:21 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:21 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:21 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:21 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 21:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-01 0:42 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-01 0:42 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-01 0:42 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-01 0:42 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 15:54 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2023-08-02 15:54 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 15:54 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 15:54 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 16:10 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-02 16:10 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-02 16:10 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-02 16:10 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-02 23:30 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:30 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:30 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:30 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 02/12] KVM: arm64: Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-24 9:13 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-24 9:13 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-24 9:13 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-27 10:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 21:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-02 15:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 15:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 15:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 15:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:28 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:28 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:28 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:28 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-04 18:19 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-04 18:19 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-04 18:19 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-04 18:19 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-08 15:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-08 15:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-08 15:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-08 15:07 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-08 16:19 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-08 16:19 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-08 16:19 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-08 16:19 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-08 16:43 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-08 16:43 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-08 16:43 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-08 16:43 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-08 16:46 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-08 16:46 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-08 16:46 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-08 16:46 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 03/12] KVM: Remove CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_TLB_FLUSH_ALL Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-24 9:13 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-24 9:13 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-24 9:13 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 04/12] KVM: Allow range-based TLB invalidation from common code Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 21:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-08-01 0:39 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-01 0:39 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-01 0:39 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-01 0:39 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-07 4:06 ` Anup Patel
2023-08-07 4:06 ` Anup Patel
2023-08-07 4:06 ` Anup Patel
2023-08-07 4:06 ` Anup Patel
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 05/12] KVM: Move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() to " Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-27 10:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 17:30 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:30 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:30 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:30 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-07 4:06 ` Anup Patel
2023-08-07 4:06 ` Anup Patel
2023-08-07 4:06 ` Anup Patel
2023-08-07 4:06 ` Anup Patel
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 06/12] arm64: tlb: Refactor the core flush algorithm of __flush_tlb_range Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-27 10:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 10:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 17:36 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:36 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:36 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:36 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 15:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 15:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 15:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 15:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:31 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:31 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:31 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:31 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 07/12] KVM: arm64: Implement __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range() Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-24 9:21 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-24 9:21 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-24 9:21 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-27 12:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 12:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 12:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 12:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 17:45 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:45 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:45 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 17:45 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 08/12] KVM: arm64: Define kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range() Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-27 12:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 12:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 12:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 12:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 13:01 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 13:01 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 13:01 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 13:01 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 18:01 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 18:01 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 18:01 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 18:01 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 09/12] KVM: arm64: Implement kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range() Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-27 12:48 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 12:48 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 12:48 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 12:48 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 10/12] KVM: arm64: Flush only the memslot after write-protect Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 11/12] KVM: arm64: Invalidate the table entries upon a range Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` [PATCH v7 12/12] KVM: arm64: Use TLBI range-based intructions for unmap Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-22 2:22 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-24 9:34 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-24 9:34 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-24 9:34 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-24 16:47 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-24 16:47 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-24 16:47 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-25 2:32 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-25 2:32 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-25 2:32 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-25 17:23 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-25 17:23 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-25 17:23 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-26 4:06 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-26 4:06 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-26 4:06 ` Shaoqin Huang
2023-07-27 13:12 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 13:12 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 13:12 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-27 13:12 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-07-31 18:26 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 18:26 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 18:26 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 18:26 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-08-02 23:33 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:33 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:33 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-08-02 23:33 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2023-07-31 21:57 ` [PATCH v7 00/12] KVM: arm64: Add support for FEAT_TLBIRANGE Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:57 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:57 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-07-31 21:57 ` Sean Christopherson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=878ratqw2l.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.