From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-188.mta0.migadu.com (out-188.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26F902599 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:48:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724978931; cv=none; b=iPxXi/34QrOd2BKzZcgX60/PAgCypQXB8PlUx6+wGMp6S14gbwwbCKsnchsNW+YD86wCnaEeA7lyjnTbxX+51bIdeOTQw/RRyF9G60nHs8J7pbWWPTn7EWe7rcE8BUmkUy9U7ecMAzIQeyUvl6gDkH+LDzslgmWbPReJ97gvQxc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724978931; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nvcQIMZEY/YWAkKwga+QFpE6n7wQ4iqysMtfgZ97hsg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Vh4q8sHpnZYErs4/ENah1xBhYgISbcvRj7oYF7XZTxQlHsDEMMyyGFwxH1aLx6RgcujriXmPTTPIzEiTyCfQ/yKsPNEVZxc4AToD+CjB8EC0P9xESqRAkz3es6G7Dx4BLSx7P5ikLpQvffdL1lwZAN3CiCVabuZk1trtbWhQoiI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=etGcMieZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="etGcMieZ" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 17:48:36 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1724978927; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=8y2Kll8nT4BLVzBidS9pKQWgrXMIL/ggfNq4v3iS4Ns=; b=etGcMieZiC3utjViFAlpI9Q6jTA2GrUhjR3APrcFmjnyykescLwEzzLIR567rkcuifxprw 492V+ebcrM2d4UHpenLZhBbJ/dJVOb5hUVdap+Mqd3d+QYeJ/tL9FfAttCtER+CVTJnnCs yWusU8FlhB1MN5HoGZPcNZMz3fz9HqM= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Oliver Upton To: James Houghton Cc: Yu Zhao , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Paolo Bonzini , Ankit Agrawal , Axel Rasmussen , Catalin Marinas , David Matlack , David Rientjes , James Morse , Jason Gunthorpe , Jonathan Corbet , Marc Zyngier , Raghavendra Rao Ananta , Ryan Roberts , Shaoqin Huang , Suzuki K Poulose , Wei Xu , Will Deacon , Zenghui Yu , kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/11] KVM: arm64: Relax locking for kvm_test_age_gfn and kvm_age_gfn Message-ID: References: <20240724011037.3671523-1-jthoughton@google.com> <20240724011037.3671523-4-jthoughton@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 05:33:00PM -0700, James Houghton wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 1:42 PM Oliver Upton wrote: > > Asking since you had a setup / data earlier on when you were carrying > > the series. Hopefully with supportive data we can get arm64 to opt-in > > to HAVE_KVM_MMU_NOTIFIER_YOUNG_FAST_ONLY as well. > > I'll keep trying some other approaches I can take for getting similar > testing that Yu had; it is somewhat difficult for me to reproduce > those tests (and it really shouldn't be.... sorry). No need to apologize. Getting good test hardware for arm64 is a complete chore. Sure would love a functional workstation with cores from this decade... > I think it makes most sense for me to drop the arm64 patch for now and > re-propose it (or something stronger) alongside enabling aging. Does > that sound ok? I'm a bit disappointed that we haven't gotten forward progress on the arm64 patches, but I also recognize this is the direction of travel as the x86 patches are shaping up. So yeah, I'm OK with it, but I'd love to get the arm64 side sorted out soon while the context is still fresh. -- Thanks, Oliver