From: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>
To: Fuad Tabba <fuad.tabba@linux.dev>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, maz@kernel.org,
oupton@kernel.org, seiden@linux.ibm.com, joey.gouly@arm.com,
suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, vdonnefort@google.com,
sebastianene@google.com, keirf@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Optimize protected mode and FWB
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:42:39 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <al8w_5ogFQgt7ZFe@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+EHjTw+BypEvWRccxqsSGR+btEX58nCUC2ypuSjw04Qo3nN=A@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 08:49:26AM +0100, Fuad Tabba wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 at 21:35, Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > KVM opportunistically enables FWB if supported by the system for guest
> > VMs, which allows it to elude cache maintenance for data as they are
> > forced to be cacheable from stage-2.
> > In that case, __clean_dcache_guest_page() will immediately return.
> > However in protected mode, before calling __clean_dcache_guest_page()
> > it loops over the range and fix_map/unmap it, issuing TLB
> > invalidations, dsb() and isb() unnecessarily.
> >
> > This can be optimized by returning early if FWB is supported,
> > kvm_pgtable_stage2_map() already issues dsb() and tlb invalidation
> > functions issue dsb() for the unmap path.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > index 4e329e39a695..6e9229106a25 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > @@ -261,6 +261,10 @@ static void __apply_guest_page(void *va, size_t size,
> >
> > static void clean_dcache_guest_page(void *va, size_t size)
> > {
> > + /* See __clean_dcache_guest_page() */
>
> This looks good to me. One comment: this file also has
> hyp_poison_page(), which deliberately avoids
> __clean_dcache_guest_page() because the FWB elision would be wrong
> there (it even notes "Prefer kvm_flush_dcache_to_poc() over
> __clean_dcache_guest_page()"). Given the two opposite treatments in
> the same file, could this comment say why eliding is safe here, e.g.
> that the consumer is the guest via the FWB-forced stage-2? It would
> save the next reader (if they're anything like me) from reconciling
> the two.
__clean_dcache_guest_page() already have this comment.
/*
* With FWB, we ensure that the guest always accesses memory using
* cacheable attributes, and we don't have to clean to PoC when
* faulting in pages. Furthermore, FWB implies IDC, so cleaning to
* PoU is not required either in this case.
*/
I will add comment to clarify guest vs host:
/*
* Guest stage-2 uses FWB if it exists, in that case it is
* safe to elide CMOs.
* Unlike the host stage-2 which never have FWB enabled.
*/
Thanks,
Mostafa
>
> That fuller comment could also replace "See
> __clean_dcache_guest_page()", which mostly just points back at the
> function passed in the __apply_guest_page() call below.
>
> With that fixed:
>
> Reviewed-by: Fuad Tabba <fuad.tabba@linux.dev>
>
> Cheers,
> /fuad
>
> > + if (cpus_have_final_cap(ARM64_HAS_STAGE2_FWB))
> > + return;
> > +
> > __apply_guest_page(va, size, __clean_dcache_guest_page);
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.55.0.229.g6434b31f56-goog
> >
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-21 8:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-20 20:35 [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Optimize protected mode and FWB Mostafa Saleh
2026-07-21 7:49 ` Fuad Tabba
2026-07-21 8:42 ` Mostafa Saleh [this message]
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=al8w_5ogFQgt7ZFe@google.com \
--to=smostafa@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=fuad.tabba@linux.dev \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=keirf@google.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oupton@kernel.org \
--cc=sebastianene@google.com \
--cc=seiden@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=vdonnefort@google.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox