From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: vladimir.murzin@arm.com (Vladimir Murzin)
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 17:18:14 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v3 1/8] arm64: KVM: Use static keys for selecting the GIC
 backend
In-Reply-To: <57D2D486.3090100@arm.com>
References: <1473350810-10857-1-git-send-email-vladimir.murzin@arm.com>
 <1473350810-10857-2-git-send-email-vladimir.murzin@arm.com>
 <57D27EA7.2040500@arm.com> <57D281F1.5000902@arm.com>
 <57D2BCEB.3030306@arm.com> <57D2C469.1030006@arm.com> <57D2D1F0.301@arm.com>
 <57D2D486.3090100@arm.com>
Message-ID: <57D2E0C6.1040608@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 09/09/16 16:25, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 09/09/16 16:14, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
>> On 09/09/16 15:17, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 09/09/16 14:45, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
>>>> On 09/09/16 10:33, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/09/16 10:19, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Vladimir,
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> +extern struct static_key_false kvm_gicv3_cpuif;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we should follow the model set by kvm_vgic_global_state, which
>>>>>>> is declared in arm_vgic.h. Even better, we should *embed* the static key
>>>>>>> in this structure. This will reduce the clutter and we wouldn't have to
>>>>>>> deal with all the section stuff (the hyp_data thing is a good cleanup,
>>>>>>> but I'd like to see it as a separate patch if possible).
>>>>> Yes, it is what I was thinking about too, but was not sure about which
>>>>> way to go, so hyp_data seemed me something we might reuse latter.
>>>>> However, I agree that we can defer hyp_data thing...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've just tried it out and it seems that static keys are not happy to
>>>> accept a key after kern_hyp_va is applied at &kvm_vgic_global_state:
>>>
>>> Ah, there is a trick. You do not need kern_hyp_va at all, because this
>>> is not evaluated as an expression at runtime (so the pointer doesn't matter).
>>>
>>
>> Ah, right, thank for a tip! ;)
>>
>>>>> In file included from ./include/linux/jump_label.h:105:0,
>>>>>                  from arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c:19:
>>>>> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/jump_label.h: In function ?__guest_run?:
>>>>> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/jump_label.h:31:2: warning: asm operand 0 probably doesn?t match constraints
>>>>>   asm goto("1: nop\n\t"
>>>>>   ^
>>>>> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/jump_label.h:31:2: warning: asm operand 0 probably doesn?t match constraints
>>>>>   asm goto("1: nop\n\t"
>>>>>   ^
>>>>> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/jump_label.h:31:2: error: impossible constraint in ?asm?
>>>>>   asm goto("1: nop\n\t"
>>>>>   ^
>>>>> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/jump_label.h:31:2: error: impossible constraint in ?asm?
>>>>>   asm goto("1: nop\n\t"
>>>>>   ^
>>>>> make[1]: *** [arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.o] Error 1
>>>>> make: *** [arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.o] Error 2
>>>>
>>>> it looks like we cannot avoid hyp_data thing... if you don't mind I can
>>>> do hyp_data clean-up in separate patch. Alternatively, we can do
>>>> conversion to static keys for both architectures later as an
>>>> optimisation step.
>>>
>>> Can you try the above first? I've just tried the same approach with my
>>> vgic-trap series, and it compiles fine (untested though):
>>
>> I was about to try it out, but didn't manage to find a branch with
>> vgic-trap series, so I did a quick fixup for my series and now it is
>> running non-VHE boot tests and I don't expect issues with VHE one. I
>> think diff bellow should work runtime too, but if you do want me to give
>> it a try it'd be handy to have a branch I can pull from ;)
> 
> I think Christoffer has pulled it into kvmarm/queue.

Nothing has exploded so far for both architectures.

Cheers
Vladimir