From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF440606A325 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 14:16:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=qAOtqeUx; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=foss header.b=dutMwEYA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc: To:From:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Owner; bh=U3mh0uWcEKmF6rz6g3nv0SX0Dkn3wPP6PAyrpn5THiI=; b=qAOtqeUxVGtaUf pWHKolpgwr8Ty8SpEYfWh/Kq3V2cSFzYCzLBcTuXqV3Wibt0I7O3Xq8lrWGSurKlJ2pl5ZY/FAv4j TlIwUxxKqIA0h2YNfz5x/QOLLasLNB8uR+ivYCu7MllDd5wTAps3kWc1pIvHJG3fKQhaXQNwxLtYK F/uQp7fVq8alI28A8UlnnyFyYxhqNZl7xaxDzuy0tUBemG1x8OYWHUEHLaxtPpLMWTtbsSzUtHdXv VJ7HyaAAbETmNbrXbcj3qYopnrJPbzcDBTM83ZsIVGlv4Sf+CU4IsYYx67Yk+70xVb42X+1U6VVgB UntjEDCq+0kt/SsuDkGg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.100.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xMnOo-0000000Br5M-0e85; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 14:16:06 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.100.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xMnOl-0000000Br4f-14Dy for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 14:16:05 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02F71F60; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 07:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LeoBrasDK.cambridge.arm.com (LeoBrasDK.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.212.21]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7681D3F673; Fri, 30 Oct 2026 07:15:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1793369761; bh=GgEd+PH/jbq28UuYqcwDbQX/UOZkQ32m5RYqOej8J8E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=dutMwEYAFpbCr/3XewPMFmB38iOS8ovV+p3UxpXzOGWbjtVHG7Al4HMwOz+NFMXD6 /aaaD3oKAX2aT2ycObpBXr5+dBEcYMgzJBnPS2YuS/IDD/LhqDW+hN3V+rSuTryn9i bi+6s+GHCIUINFW1E+zM80eCwXTT1rVCtofpGbmg= From: Leonardo Bras To: Tian Zheng Cc: Leonardo Bras , maz@kernel.org, oupton@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, pbonzini@redhat.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, wangzhou1@hisilicon.com, yangjinqian1@huawei.com, caijian11@h-partners.com, liuyonglong@huawei.com, tangchengchang@huawei.com, yezhenyu2@huawei.com, yubihong@huawei.com, linuxarm@huawei.com, joey.gouly@arm.com, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, seiden@linux.ibm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, fuad.tabba@linux.dev, mark.rutland@arm.com, seanjc@google.com, rdunlap@infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/15] KVM: arm64: Add support for FEAT_HDBSS Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 14:15:51 +0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.56.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20260929103655.85107-1-zhengtian10@huawei.com> <20260929103655.85107-7-zhengtian10@huawei.com> X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20261030_071603_453310_5C726259 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 29.68 ) X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 10:53:57AM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote: > > > On 10/27/2026 2:12 AM, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 06:36:46PM +0800, Tian Zheng wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > > > index 32102c3912fa..12fa37328dd2 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c > > > @@ -2158,6 +2158,11 @@ static bool hvhe_possible(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, > > > return arm64_test_sw_feature_override(ARM64_SW_FEATURE_OVERRIDE_HVHE); > > > } > > > > > > +static bool has_vhe_hdbss(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope) > > > +{ > > > + return is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && has_cpuid_feature(entry, scope); > > > +} > > > + > > > > Hi leo, > > > IIUC you run this on every cpu in the system, to make sure it's matching > > the feature. Is there any chance the kernel is in EL2 only on some of the > > cpus here? > > > > It's impossible for the system to have only some CPUs in EL2 and others > not. > > > If not, maybe we can run it on system_supports_hdbss() instead, which would > > be easier for the user to understand it only runs in EL2, on top of not > > needing the above. > > > > However, The question is whether a cap should mean "this system can use > the feature" or "this hardware supports the feature". If the cap only > tracks hardware support, users may be confused when the hardware > supports HDBSS but the system runs in nVHE mode — they would mistakenly > believe they can use the feature. > > So I think we should keep is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() in has_vhe_hdbss(), > and add a comment in system_supports_hdbss() explaining this. > > Does that work for you? Looking forward to your reply. Well, That's just my personal view of this: If we have a function called "has_hdbss" it should only report if the system has the feature available. On the "system_supports_*" we have to figure out if the system itself supports the feature, which checks the feature bits itself and could mean checking for other features being there, such as hyp_mode. What do you think? Thx, Leo