[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <913b9a53-1df4-e371-a3d8-867d1242c341@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:58:54 +0200
From: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/15] x86/tlb: Unexport per-CPU tlbstate
On 4/20/20 11:20 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Just looking over some exports at the end of the series (and thus
> ignoring bisection issues):
>
> - Is there any good reason to keep __flush_tlb_all inline vs moving it
> out of line and kill the flush_tlb_local and flush_tlb_global exports.
> Also there is just a single modular users in SVM, I wonder if there is
> any way to get rid of that one as well.
>
> Also I think cpu_tlbstate itself could be marked static in tlb.c with
> a few more changes, I wonder if would be worth it?
>
For Address Space Isolation (ASI), I was planning on storing the ASI session
into cpu_tlbstate (https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/26/699) as the ASI session
then provides the TLB flushing information based on the ASI used. In that case,
I would need cpu_tlbstate to be non-static. Otherwise I can have my own percpu
asi_session structures, but using cpu_tlbstate seemed more appropriate to me.
This is opened for discussion; for now, I am waiting for more changes that tglx
is making, before rebasing ASI.
alex.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists