[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <716cdf73799a5322cbe34c7f23d582f8a3ecf301.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 10:09:08 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"bagasdotme@...il.com" <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"nik.borisov@...e.com" <nik.borisov@...e.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"imammedo@...hat.com" <imammedo@...hat.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 07/22] x86/virt/tdx: Add skeleton to enable TDX on
demand
On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 11:22 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:15:13AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
>
> > > Can be called locally or through an IPI function call.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks. As in another reply, if using spinlock is OK, then I think we can say
> > it will be called either locally or through an IPI function call. Otherwise, we
> > do via a new separate function tdx_global_init() and no lock is needed in that
> > function. The caller should call it properly.
>
> IPI must use raw_spinlock_t. I'm ok with using raw_spinlock_t if there's
> actual need for that, but the code as presented didn't -- in comments or
> otherwise -- make it clear why it was as it was.
There's no hard requirement as I replied in another email.
Presumably you prefer the option to have a dedicated tdx_global_init() so we can
avoid the raw_spinlock_t?
Thanks.
>
> TDX not specifying time constraints on the various TD/SEAM-CALLs is
> ofcourse sad, but alas.
Agreed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists