From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Only clean the dcache on
 translation fault
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 07:36:34 -0700
Message-ID: <20171017143634.GI5886@lvm>
References: <20171009152032.27804-1-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <20171009152032.27804-7-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <20171016200811.GH1845@lvm>
 <210cf2dc-2566-a29b-637e-901f3dcc80b6@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:55467 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932407AbdJQOgh (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:36:37 -0400
Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id u138so4442851wmu.4
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 07:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <210cf2dc-2566-a29b-637e-901f3dcc80b6@arm.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:34:15AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 16/10/17 21:08, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> The only case where we actually need to perform a dache maintenance
> >> is when we map the page for the first time, and subsequent permission
> >> faults do not require cache maintenance. Let's make it conditional
> >> on not being a permission fault (and thus a translation fault).
> > 
> > Why do we actually need to do any dcache maintenance when faulting in a
> > page?
> > 
> > Is this for the case when the stage 1 MMU is disabled, or to support
> > guest mappings using uncached attributes?
> 
> These are indeed the two cases that require cleaning the dcache to PoC.
> 
> > Can we do better, for example
> > by only flushing the cache if the guest MMU is disabled?
> 
> The guest MMU being disabled is easy. But the uncached mapping is much
> trickier, and would involve parsing the guest page tables. Not something
> I'm really eager to implement.
> 

Hmm, if the guest actually maps memory uncached, wouldn't it have to
invalidate caches itself, or is this the annoying thing where disabling
the MMU on hardware that doesn't have stage 2 would in fact always
completely bypass the cache, and therefore we have to do this work?

Sorry, I have forgotten all the details here, but wanted to make sure
we're not being overly careful.

Thanks,
-Christoffer