From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Upton Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:05:43 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/7] KVM: arm64: Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() In-Reply-To: <20230126184025.2294823-3-dmatlack@google.com> References: <20230126184025.2294823-1-dmatlack@google.com> <20230126184025.2294823-3-dmatlack@google.com> Message-ID: List-Id: To: kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:40:20AM -0800, David Matlack wrote: > Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() instead of > CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_TLB_FLUSH_ALL. The two mechanisms solve the same > problem, allowing architecture-specific code to provide a non-IPI > implementation of remote TLB flushing. > > Dropping CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_TLB_FLUSH_ALL allows KVM to standardize > all architectures on kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() instead of maintaining > two mechanisms. > > Opt to standardize on kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() since it avoids > duplicating the generic TLB stats across architectures that implement > their own remote TLB flush. > > This adds an extra function call to the ARM64 kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() > path, but that is a small cost in comparison to flushing remote TLBs. > > No functional change intended. > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack Acked-by: Oliver Upton -- Thanks, Oliver