[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YoUAM9UtfQlGOZxl@google.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 14:18:27 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Siddharth Chandrasekaran <sidcha@...zon.de>,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/34] KVM: x86: hyper-v: Handle
HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_LIST{,EX} calls gently
On Wed, May 18, 2022, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com> writes:
> > Or if using kfifo, then it can contain plain u64 items, which is even more natural.
> >
>
> In the next version I switch to fifo and get rid of 'flush_all' entries
> but instead of a boolean I use a 'magic' value of '-1' in GVA. This way
> we don't need to synchronize with the reader and add any special
> handling for the flag.
Isn't -1 theoretically possible? Or is wrapping not allowed? E.g. requesting a
flush for address=0xfffffffffffff000, count = 0xfff will yield -1 and doesn't
create any illegal addresses in the process.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists