Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] KVM: arm64: Support FEAT_LPA2 at hyp s1 and vm s2

From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] KVM: arm64: Support FEAT_LPA2 at hyp s1 and vm s2
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:54:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <867cnhmun2.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231009185008.3803879-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>

Hi Ryan,

On Mon, 09 Oct 2023 19:49:56 +0100,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> This adds support for FEAT_LPA2 to KVM for both hypervisor stage 1 (for the
> nvhe/protected modes) and the vm stage 2 translation tables (for all modes).
> FEAT_LPA2 enables 52 bit PAs and VAs for 4KB and 16KB granules (note this is
> already supported for 64KB granules via the FEAT_LPA and FEAT_LVA extensions).
> The series does not include support for FEAT_LPA2 in the kernel stage 1. This
> support is provided separately by Ard Biesheuvel's series at [4]. The two series
> are mostly independent.
> 
> This is a small update from v3, rebased onto v6.6-rc5 and incorporating some
> minor changes based on review comments from Oliver.
> 
> NOTE: I've included my patch to update the range-based tlbi functions to work
> with LPA2 in this version, because KVM has started using range-based tlbi
> invalidation as of v6.6-rc1. I've done this in such a way that KVM-originated
> calls will use the LPA2 format if LPA2 is in use by KVM, but the
> kernel-originated calls are hardcoded to never use the LPA2 format. If merging
> with Ard's series, you will need to update the 2 calls to __flush_tlb_range_op()
> from __flush_tlb_range() appropriately.
> 
> 
> Testing
> =======
> 
> Testing has been done exclusively on the FVP and covers my boot matrix tests
> and kvm selftests.
> 
> The host/guest config boot matrix gives the same (expected) results as for the
> v3 submission; of 180 conifgs, 12 fail, and these are all due to attempting to
> load the host kernel into high memory which isn't expected to work until the
> kernel has FEAT_LPA2 support for its stage 1. (refer to v1 posting for details
> on the exact configs).
> 
> KVM selftests have been enhanced to support P52V48 4K and 16K guest modes, and
> all tests have been run against a P48V48_4K host and a P52V52_4K host (a run
> takes about 10 hours on FVP, sigh, but I can test a few more host configs if
> useful).

Have you tried with the (brand new) "arm64_sw.hvhe=1" command-line
option, which enables VHE for the EL2 hypervisor only? I expect things
to work, but it would be good to make sure...

> All tests pass except "memslot_perf_test", which fails due to a timeout
> while syncing. This test fails in the same way for plain v6.6-rc1, so I'm
> confident this is not a regression caused by this series. (the issue is that
> alarm(2) is issued and the signal is received before alarm(0) is issued. I
> expect this is an FVP-time related problem, although I'm not sure how to fix
> robustly for the FVP without potentially hanging real systems for long periods
> of time).

[...]

This is starting to look good, and I only had pretty minor comments on
this series so far. It is too late for 6.7, but if you can respin it
for -rc1, I'll happily review it again and queue it for 6.8 if things
keep looking OK.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

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