All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Add a common API for range-based TLB invalidation
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:46:59 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9B8A+/FSPCrAANT@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230119173559.2517103-1-dmatlack@google.com>

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, David Matlack wrote:
> This series introduces a common API for performing range-based TLB
> invalidation. This is then used to supplant
> kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() and pave the way for two other
> patch series:
> 
> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230109215347.3119271-1-rananta at google.com/
> 
>   Adds ARM support for range-based TLB invalidation and needs a
>   mechanism to invoke it from common code. This series provides such a
>   mechanism via kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range().
> 
> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20221208193857.4090582-1-dmatlack at google.com/
> 
>   Refactors the TDP MMU into common code, which requires an API for
>   range-based TLB invaliation.
> 
> This series is based on patches 29-33 from (2.), but I made some further
> cleanups after looking at it a second time.
> 
> Tested on x86_64 and ARM64 using KVM selftests.

Did a quick read through, didn't see anything I disagree with.

Is there any urgency to getting this merged?  If not, due to the dependencies
with x86 stuff queued for 6.3, and because of the cross-architecture changes, it
might be easiest to plan on landing this in 6.4.  That would allow Paolo to create
an immutable topic branch fairly early on.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Add a common API for range-based TLB invalidation
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:46:59 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9B8A+/FSPCrAANT@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230119173559.2517103-1-dmatlack@google.com>

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, David Matlack wrote:
> This series introduces a common API for performing range-based TLB
> invalidation. This is then used to supplant
> kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() and pave the way for two other
> patch series:
> 
> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230109215347.3119271-1-rananta@google.com/
> 
>   Adds ARM support for range-based TLB invalidation and needs a
>   mechanism to invoke it from common code. This series provides such a
>   mechanism via kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range().
> 
> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20221208193857.4090582-1-dmatlack@google.com/
> 
>   Refactors the TDP MMU into common code, which requires an API for
>   range-based TLB invaliation.
> 
> This series is based on patches 29-33 from (2.), but I made some further
> cleanups after looking at it a second time.
> 
> Tested on x86_64 and ARM64 using KVM selftests.

Did a quick read through, didn't see anything I disagree with.

Is there any urgency to getting this merged?  If not, due to the dependencies
with x86 stuff queued for 6.3, and because of the cross-architecture changes, it
might be easiest to plan on landing this in 6.4.  That would allow Paolo to create
an immutable topic branch fairly early on.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Add a common API for range-based TLB invalidation
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:46:59 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9B8A+/FSPCrAANT@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230119173559.2517103-1-dmatlack@google.com>

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, David Matlack wrote:
> This series introduces a common API for performing range-based TLB
> invalidation. This is then used to supplant
> kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() and pave the way for two other
> patch series:
> 
> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230109215347.3119271-1-rananta@google.com/
> 
>   Adds ARM support for range-based TLB invalidation and needs a
>   mechanism to invoke it from common code. This series provides such a
>   mechanism via kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range().
> 
> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20221208193857.4090582-1-dmatlack@google.com/
> 
>   Refactors the TDP MMU into common code, which requires an API for
>   range-based TLB invaliation.
> 
> This series is based on patches 29-33 from (2.), but I made some further
> cleanups after looking at it a second time.
> 
> Tested on x86_64 and ARM64 using KVM selftests.

Did a quick read through, didn't see anything I disagree with.

Is there any urgency to getting this merged?  If not, due to the dependencies
with x86 stuff queued for 6.3, and because of the cross-architecture changes, it
might be easiest to plan on landing this in 6.4.  That would allow Paolo to create
an immutable topic branch fairly early on.

_______________________________________________
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: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
	Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Add a common API for range-based TLB invalidation
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:46:59 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9B8A+/FSPCrAANT@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230119173559.2517103-1-dmatlack@google.com>

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, David Matlack wrote:
> This series introduces a common API for performing range-based TLB
> invalidation. This is then used to supplant
> kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() and pave the way for two other
> patch series:
> 
> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230109215347.3119271-1-rananta@google.com/
> 
>   Adds ARM support for range-based TLB invalidation and needs a
>   mechanism to invoke it from common code. This series provides such a
>   mechanism via kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range().
> 
> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20221208193857.4090582-1-dmatlack@google.com/
> 
>   Refactors the TDP MMU into common code, which requires an API for
>   range-based TLB invaliation.
> 
> This series is based on patches 29-33 from (2.), but I made some further
> cleanups after looking at it a second time.
> 
> Tested on x86_64 and ARM64 using KVM selftests.

Did a quick read through, didn't see anything I disagree with.

Is there any urgency to getting this merged?  If not, due to the dependencies
with x86 stuff queued for 6.3, and because of the cross-architecture changes, it
might be easiest to plan on landing this in 6.4.  That would allow Paolo to create
an immutable topic branch fairly early on.

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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-01-25  0:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-19 17:35 [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Add a common API for range-based TLB invalidation David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35 ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35 ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35 ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35 ` [PATCH 1/7] KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35 ` [PATCH 2/7] KVM: arm64: Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-24 17:17   ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-24 17:17     ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-24 17:17     ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-24 17:17     ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-24 17:28     ` David Matlack
2023-01-24 17:28       ` David Matlack
2023-01-24 17:28       ` David Matlack
2023-01-24 17:28       ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35 ` [PATCH 3/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Collapse kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_{range,address}() together David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35 ` [PATCH 4/7] KVM: x86/mmu: Rename kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_with_address() David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 18:17   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-19 18:17     ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-19 18:17     ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-19 18:17     ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-19 18:26     ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 18:26       ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 18:26       ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 18:26       ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35 ` [PATCH 5/7] KVM: x86/MMU: Use gfn_t in kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_range() David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35 ` [PATCH 6/7] KVM: Allow range-based TLB invalidation from common code David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-24 17:17   ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-24 17:17     ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-24 17:17     ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-24 17:17     ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-19 17:35 ` [PATCH 7/7] KVM: Move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() to " David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-19 17:35   ` David Matlack
2023-01-25  0:46 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2023-01-25  0:46   ` [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Add a common API for range-based TLB invalidation Sean Christopherson
2023-01-25  0:46   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-25  0:46   ` Sean Christopherson
2023-01-25  0:51   ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-25  0:51     ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-25  0:51     ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-25  0:51     ` Oliver Upton
2023-01-25 17:21     ` David Matlack
2023-01-25 17:21       ` David Matlack
2023-01-25 17:21       ` David Matlack
2023-01-25 17:21       ` David Matlack

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=Y9B8A+/FSPCrAANT@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --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.