From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam03on0067.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.42.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3xmHP02F5BzDqZs for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 03:47:31 +1000 (AEST) Cc: brijesh.singh@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Tony Luck , Piotr Luc , Tom Lendacky , Fenghua Yu , Reza Arbab , David Howells , Matt Fleming , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Laura Abbott , Ard Biesheuvel , Andrew Morton , Eric Biederman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Jonathan Corbet , Dave Airlie , Kees Cook , Paolo Bonzini , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Arnd Bergmann , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC Part1 PATCH v3 16/17] X86/KVM: Provide support to create Guest and HV shared per-CPU variables To: Borislav Petkov References: <20170724190757.11278-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <20170724190757.11278-17-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <20170829102258.gxk227js4yw47qi3@pd.tnic> <0810a732-9c77-a543-ffeb-7fd2d8f46266@amd.com> <20170830174655.ehrnmynotmp7laka@pd.tnic> <8155b5b2-b2b3-bc8f-33ae-b81b661a2e38@amd.com> <20170904170525.toyulxwaevef42qe@pd.tnic> From: Brijesh Singh Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 12:47:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170904170525.toyulxwaevef42qe@pd.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 9/4/17 12:05 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:52:13PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote: >> So far, we have not seen the need for having such functions except >> this cases. The approach we have right now works just fine and not >> sure if its worth adding new functions. > Then put the call to kvm_map_hv_shared_decrypted() into > kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu() to denote that you're executing this whole > stuff only once during guest init. > > Now you're doing additional jumping-through-hoops with that once static > var just so you can force something which needs to execute only once but > gets called in a per-CPU path. > > See what I mean? Yes, I see your point. I will address this issue in next rev. -Brijesh