All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: "jean-philippe@linaro.org" <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	"maz@kernel.org" <maz@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
	"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/3] kvm/arm: Introduce a new vmid allocator for KVM
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 06:34:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8c0345ae808140f79c2adc4e0fd2effc@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210721160614.GC11003@willie-the-truck>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Deacon [mailto:will@kernel.org]
> Sent: 21 July 2021 17:06
> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; maz@kernel.org; catalin.marinas@arm.com;
> james.morse@arm.com; julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com;
> suzuki.poulose@arm.com; jean-philippe@linaro.org;
> Alexandru.Elisei@arm.com; Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] kvm/arm: Introduce a new vmid allocator for KVM
> 
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 04:56:05PM +0100, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
> > A new VMID allocator for arm64 KVM use. This is based on
> > arm64 asid allocator algorithm.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum
> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h |   4 +
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c             | 206
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 210 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c
> 
> Generally, I prefer this to the alternative of creating a library. However,
> I'd probably remove all the duplicated comments in favour of a reference
> to the ASID allocator. That way, we can just comment any VMID-specific
> behaviour in here.

Agree. I retained the comments mainly for myself as its very difficult at times
to follow :)

> 
> Some comments below...
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 7cd7d5c8c4bc..75a7e8071012 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -680,6 +680,10 @@ int kvm_arm_pvtime_get_attr(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu,
> >  int kvm_arm_pvtime_has_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >  			    struct kvm_device_attr *attr);
> >
> > +int kvm_arm_vmid_alloc_init(void);
> > +void kvm_arm_vmid_alloc_free(void);
> > +void kvm_arm_update_vmid(atomic64_t *id);
> > +
> >  static inline void kvm_arm_pvtime_vcpu_init(struct kvm_vcpu_arch
> *vcpu_arch)
> >  {
> >  	vcpu_arch->steal.base = GPA_INVALID;
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..687e18d33130
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * VMID allocator.
> > + *
> > + * Based on arch/arm64/mm/context.c
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2002-2003 Deep Blue Solutions Ltd, all rights reserved.
> > + * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Ltd.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > +
> > +#include <asm/kvm_asm.h>
> > +#include <asm/kvm_mmu.h>
> > +
> > +static u32 vmid_bits;
> > +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(cpu_vmid_lock);
> > +
> > +static atomic64_t vmid_generation;
> > +static unsigned long *vmid_map;
> > +
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic64_t, active_vmids);
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, reserved_vmids);
> > +static cpumask_t tlb_flush_pending;
> > +
> > +#define VMID_MASK		(~GENMASK(vmid_bits - 1, 0))
> > +#define VMID_FIRST_VERSION	(1UL << vmid_bits)
> > +
> > +#define NUM_USER_VMIDS		VMID_FIRST_VERSION
> > +#define vmid2idx(vmid)		((vmid) & ~VMID_MASK)
> > +#define idx2vmid(idx)		vmid2idx(idx)
> > +
> > +#define vmid_gen_match(vmid) \
> > +	(!(((vmid) ^ atomic64_read(&vmid_generation)) >> vmid_bits))
> > +
> > +static void flush_context(void)
> > +{
> > +	int cpu;
> > +	u64 vmid;
> > +
> > +	bitmap_clear(vmid_map, 0, NUM_USER_VMIDS);
> > +
> > +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > +		vmid = atomic64_xchg_relaxed(&per_cpu(active_vmids, cpu), 0);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If this CPU has already been through a
> > +		 * rollover, but hasn't run another task in
> > +		 * the meantime, we must preserve its reserved
> > +		 * VMID, as this is the only trace we have of
> > +		 * the process it is still running.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (vmid == 0)
> > +			vmid = per_cpu(reserved_vmids, cpu);
> > +		__set_bit(vmid2idx(vmid), vmid_map);
> > +		per_cpu(reserved_vmids, cpu) = vmid;
> > +	}
> 
> Hmm, so here we're copying the active_vmids into the reserved_vmids on a
> rollover, but I wonder if that's overly pessismistic? For the ASID
> allocator, every CPU tends to have a current task so it makes sense, but
> I'm not sure it's necessarily the case that every CPU tends to have a
> vCPU as the current task. For example, imagine you have a nasty 128-CPU
> system with 8-bit VMIDs and each CPU has at some point run a vCPU. Then,
> on rollover, we'll immediately reserve half of the VMID space, even if
> those vCPUs don't even exist any more.
> 
> Not sure if it's worth worrying about, but I wanted to mention it.

Ok. I see your suggestion in patch #3 to avoid this.

> 
> > +void kvm_arm_update_vmid(atomic64_t *id)
> > +{
> 
> Take the kvm_vmid here? That would make:
> 
> > +	/* Check that our VMID belongs to the current generation. */
> > +	vmid = atomic64_read(id);
> > +	if (!vmid_gen_match(vmid)) {
> > +		vmid = new_vmid(id);
> > +		atomic64_set(id, vmid);
> > +	}
> 
> A bit more readable, as you could pass the pointer directly to new_vmid
> for initialisation.

Ok.

Thanks,
Shameer
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"maz@kernel.org" <maz@kernel.org>,
	"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"james.morse@arm.com" <james.morse@arm.com>,
	"julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com" <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
	"suzuki.poulose@arm.com" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	"jean-philippe@linaro.org" <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	"Alexandru.Elisei@arm.com" <Alexandru.Elisei@arm.com>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/3] kvm/arm: Introduce a new vmid allocator for KVM
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 06:34:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8c0345ae808140f79c2adc4e0fd2effc@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210721160614.GC11003@willie-the-truck>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Deacon [mailto:will@kernel.org]
> Sent: 21 July 2021 17:06
> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; maz@kernel.org; catalin.marinas@arm.com;
> james.morse@arm.com; julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com;
> suzuki.poulose@arm.com; jean-philippe@linaro.org;
> Alexandru.Elisei@arm.com; Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] kvm/arm: Introduce a new vmid allocator for KVM
> 
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 04:56:05PM +0100, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
> > A new VMID allocator for arm64 KVM use. This is based on
> > arm64 asid allocator algorithm.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum
> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h |   4 +
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c             | 206
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 210 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c
> 
> Generally, I prefer this to the alternative of creating a library. However,
> I'd probably remove all the duplicated comments in favour of a reference
> to the ASID allocator. That way, we can just comment any VMID-specific
> behaviour in here.

Agree. I retained the comments mainly for myself as its very difficult at times
to follow :)

> 
> Some comments below...
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 7cd7d5c8c4bc..75a7e8071012 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -680,6 +680,10 @@ int kvm_arm_pvtime_get_attr(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu,
> >  int kvm_arm_pvtime_has_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >  			    struct kvm_device_attr *attr);
> >
> > +int kvm_arm_vmid_alloc_init(void);
> > +void kvm_arm_vmid_alloc_free(void);
> > +void kvm_arm_update_vmid(atomic64_t *id);
> > +
> >  static inline void kvm_arm_pvtime_vcpu_init(struct kvm_vcpu_arch
> *vcpu_arch)
> >  {
> >  	vcpu_arch->steal.base = GPA_INVALID;
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..687e18d33130
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * VMID allocator.
> > + *
> > + * Based on arch/arm64/mm/context.c
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2002-2003 Deep Blue Solutions Ltd, all rights reserved.
> > + * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Ltd.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > +
> > +#include <asm/kvm_asm.h>
> > +#include <asm/kvm_mmu.h>
> > +
> > +static u32 vmid_bits;
> > +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(cpu_vmid_lock);
> > +
> > +static atomic64_t vmid_generation;
> > +static unsigned long *vmid_map;
> > +
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic64_t, active_vmids);
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, reserved_vmids);
> > +static cpumask_t tlb_flush_pending;
> > +
> > +#define VMID_MASK		(~GENMASK(vmid_bits - 1, 0))
> > +#define VMID_FIRST_VERSION	(1UL << vmid_bits)
> > +
> > +#define NUM_USER_VMIDS		VMID_FIRST_VERSION
> > +#define vmid2idx(vmid)		((vmid) & ~VMID_MASK)
> > +#define idx2vmid(idx)		vmid2idx(idx)
> > +
> > +#define vmid_gen_match(vmid) \
> > +	(!(((vmid) ^ atomic64_read(&vmid_generation)) >> vmid_bits))
> > +
> > +static void flush_context(void)
> > +{
> > +	int cpu;
> > +	u64 vmid;
> > +
> > +	bitmap_clear(vmid_map, 0, NUM_USER_VMIDS);
> > +
> > +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > +		vmid = atomic64_xchg_relaxed(&per_cpu(active_vmids, cpu), 0);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If this CPU has already been through a
> > +		 * rollover, but hasn't run another task in
> > +		 * the meantime, we must preserve its reserved
> > +		 * VMID, as this is the only trace we have of
> > +		 * the process it is still running.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (vmid == 0)
> > +			vmid = per_cpu(reserved_vmids, cpu);
> > +		__set_bit(vmid2idx(vmid), vmid_map);
> > +		per_cpu(reserved_vmids, cpu) = vmid;
> > +	}
> 
> Hmm, so here we're copying the active_vmids into the reserved_vmids on a
> rollover, but I wonder if that's overly pessismistic? For the ASID
> allocator, every CPU tends to have a current task so it makes sense, but
> I'm not sure it's necessarily the case that every CPU tends to have a
> vCPU as the current task. For example, imagine you have a nasty 128-CPU
> system with 8-bit VMIDs and each CPU has at some point run a vCPU. Then,
> on rollover, we'll immediately reserve half of the VMID space, even if
> those vCPUs don't even exist any more.
> 
> Not sure if it's worth worrying about, but I wanted to mention it.

Ok. I see your suggestion in patch #3 to avoid this.

> 
> > +void kvm_arm_update_vmid(atomic64_t *id)
> > +{
> 
> Take the kvm_vmid here? That would make:
> 
> > +	/* Check that our VMID belongs to the current generation. */
> > +	vmid = atomic64_read(id);
> > +	if (!vmid_gen_match(vmid)) {
> > +		vmid = new_vmid(id);
> > +		atomic64_set(id, vmid);
> > +	}
> 
> A bit more readable, as you could pass the pointer directly to new_vmid
> for initialisation.

Ok.

Thanks,
Shameer

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"maz@kernel.org" <maz@kernel.org>,
	"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"james.morse@arm.com" <james.morse@arm.com>,
	"julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com" <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
	"suzuki.poulose@arm.com" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	"jean-philippe@linaro.org" <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	"Alexandru.Elisei@arm.com" <Alexandru.Elisei@arm.com>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/3] kvm/arm: Introduce a new vmid allocator for KVM
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 06:34:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8c0345ae808140f79c2adc4e0fd2effc@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210721160614.GC11003@willie-the-truck>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Deacon [mailto:will@kernel.org]
> Sent: 21 July 2021 17:06
> To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; maz@kernel.org; catalin.marinas@arm.com;
> james.morse@arm.com; julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com;
> suzuki.poulose@arm.com; jean-philippe@linaro.org;
> Alexandru.Elisei@arm.com; Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] kvm/arm: Introduce a new vmid allocator for KVM
> 
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 04:56:05PM +0100, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
> > A new VMID allocator for arm64 KVM use. This is based on
> > arm64 asid allocator algorithm.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum
> <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h |   4 +
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c             | 206
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 210 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c
> 
> Generally, I prefer this to the alternative of creating a library. However,
> I'd probably remove all the duplicated comments in favour of a reference
> to the ASID allocator. That way, we can just comment any VMID-specific
> behaviour in here.

Agree. I retained the comments mainly for myself as its very difficult at times
to follow :)

> 
> Some comments below...
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 7cd7d5c8c4bc..75a7e8071012 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -680,6 +680,10 @@ int kvm_arm_pvtime_get_attr(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu,
> >  int kvm_arm_pvtime_has_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >  			    struct kvm_device_attr *attr);
> >
> > +int kvm_arm_vmid_alloc_init(void);
> > +void kvm_arm_vmid_alloc_free(void);
> > +void kvm_arm_update_vmid(atomic64_t *id);
> > +
> >  static inline void kvm_arm_pvtime_vcpu_init(struct kvm_vcpu_arch
> *vcpu_arch)
> >  {
> >  	vcpu_arch->steal.base = GPA_INVALID;
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..687e18d33130
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vmid.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * VMID allocator.
> > + *
> > + * Based on arch/arm64/mm/context.c
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2002-2003 Deep Blue Solutions Ltd, all rights reserved.
> > + * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Ltd.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > +
> > +#include <asm/kvm_asm.h>
> > +#include <asm/kvm_mmu.h>
> > +
> > +static u32 vmid_bits;
> > +static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(cpu_vmid_lock);
> > +
> > +static atomic64_t vmid_generation;
> > +static unsigned long *vmid_map;
> > +
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic64_t, active_vmids);
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, reserved_vmids);
> > +static cpumask_t tlb_flush_pending;
> > +
> > +#define VMID_MASK		(~GENMASK(vmid_bits - 1, 0))
> > +#define VMID_FIRST_VERSION	(1UL << vmid_bits)
> > +
> > +#define NUM_USER_VMIDS		VMID_FIRST_VERSION
> > +#define vmid2idx(vmid)		((vmid) & ~VMID_MASK)
> > +#define idx2vmid(idx)		vmid2idx(idx)
> > +
> > +#define vmid_gen_match(vmid) \
> > +	(!(((vmid) ^ atomic64_read(&vmid_generation)) >> vmid_bits))
> > +
> > +static void flush_context(void)
> > +{
> > +	int cpu;
> > +	u64 vmid;
> > +
> > +	bitmap_clear(vmid_map, 0, NUM_USER_VMIDS);
> > +
> > +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > +		vmid = atomic64_xchg_relaxed(&per_cpu(active_vmids, cpu), 0);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If this CPU has already been through a
> > +		 * rollover, but hasn't run another task in
> > +		 * the meantime, we must preserve its reserved
> > +		 * VMID, as this is the only trace we have of
> > +		 * the process it is still running.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (vmid == 0)
> > +			vmid = per_cpu(reserved_vmids, cpu);
> > +		__set_bit(vmid2idx(vmid), vmid_map);
> > +		per_cpu(reserved_vmids, cpu) = vmid;
> > +	}
> 
> Hmm, so here we're copying the active_vmids into the reserved_vmids on a
> rollover, but I wonder if that's overly pessismistic? For the ASID
> allocator, every CPU tends to have a current task so it makes sense, but
> I'm not sure it's necessarily the case that every CPU tends to have a
> vCPU as the current task. For example, imagine you have a nasty 128-CPU
> system with 8-bit VMIDs and each CPU has at some point run a vCPU. Then,
> on rollover, we'll immediately reserve half of the VMID space, even if
> those vCPUs don't even exist any more.
> 
> Not sure if it's worth worrying about, but I wanted to mention it.

Ok. I see your suggestion in patch #3 to avoid this.

> 
> > +void kvm_arm_update_vmid(atomic64_t *id)
> > +{
> 
> Take the kvm_vmid here? That would make:
> 
> > +	/* Check that our VMID belongs to the current generation. */
> > +	vmid = atomic64_read(id);
> > +	if (!vmid_gen_match(vmid)) {
> > +		vmid = new_vmid(id);
> > +		atomic64_set(id, vmid);
> > +	}
> 
> A bit more readable, as you could pass the pointer directly to new_vmid
> for initialisation.

Ok.

Thanks,
Shameer

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-22  6:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-16 15:56 [PATCH v2 0/3] kvm/arm: New VMID allocator based on asid Shameer Kolothum
2021-06-16 15:56 ` Shameer Kolothum
2021-06-16 15:56 ` Shameer Kolothum
2021-06-16 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] arch/arm64: Introduce a capability to tell whether 16-bit VMID is available Shameer Kolothum
2021-06-16 15:56   ` Shameer Kolothum
2021-06-16 15:56   ` Shameer Kolothum
2021-07-21 15:23   ` Will Deacon
2021-07-21 15:23     ` Will Deacon
2021-07-21 15:23     ` Will Deacon
2021-07-22  6:24     ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2021-07-22  6:24       ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2021-07-22  6:24       ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2021-06-16 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] kvm/arm: Introduce a new vmid allocator for KVM Shameer Kolothum
2021-06-16 15:56   ` Shameer Kolothum
2021-06-16 15:56   ` Shameer Kolothum
2021-07-21 16:06   ` Will Deacon
2021-07-21 16:06     ` Will Deacon
2021-07-21 16:06     ` Will Deacon
2021-07-22  6:34     ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi [this message]
2021-07-22  6:34       ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2021-07-22  6:34       ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2021-06-16 15:56 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] kvm/arm: Align the VMID allocation with the arm64 ASID one Shameer Kolothum
2021-06-16 15:56   ` Shameer Kolothum
2021-06-16 15:56   ` Shameer Kolothum
2021-07-21 16:31   ` Will Deacon
2021-07-21 16:31     ` Will Deacon
2021-07-21 16:31     ` Will Deacon
2021-07-22  6:45     ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2021-07-22  6:45       ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2021-07-22  6:45       ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2021-07-22  9:11       ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-22  9:11         ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-22  9:11         ` Quentin Perret
2021-07-22 19:33         ` Marco Elver
2021-07-22 19:33           ` Marco Elver
2021-07-22 19:33           ` Marco Elver
2021-07-22  9:50       ` Will Deacon
2021-07-22  9:50         ` Will Deacon
2021-07-22  9:50         ` Will Deacon
2021-07-22 15:22         ` Vladimir Murzin
2021-07-22 15:22           ` Vladimir Murzin
2021-07-22 15:22           ` Vladimir Murzin
2021-07-22 15:38           ` Will Deacon
2021-07-22 15:38             ` Will Deacon
2021-07-22 15:38             ` Will Deacon
2021-07-23 15:49             ` Vladimir Murzin
2021-07-23 15:49               ` Vladimir Murzin
2021-07-23 15:49               ` Vladimir Murzin
2021-07-13  7:07 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] kvm/arm: New VMID allocator based on asid Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2021-07-13  7:07   ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2021-07-13  7:07   ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi

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=8c0345ae808140f79c2adc4e0fd2effc@huawei.com \
    --to=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.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.