[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tv1durws.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:09:07 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
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
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 07:27:06PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:
>> > 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.
>>
>> I'll have a look again.
>
> Regarding the SVM case, the only usage is for a TLB errata. At a glance,
> svm_init_erratum_383() and is_erratum_383() don't use any KVM hooks, i.e. I
> don't see anything that would prevent moving those to .../kernel/cpu/amd.c.
Right, but that would trade one export vs. two SVM errata specific
exports. Not really a win.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists