[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230630184229.GG3436214@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 11:42:29 -0700
From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc: "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"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>,
isaku.yamahata@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 07/22] x86/virt/tdx: Add skeleton to enable TDX on
demand
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:09:08AM +0000,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> 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?
TDX KVM calls tdx_cpu_enable() in IPI context as KVM hardware_setup() callback.
tdx_cpu_enable() calls tdx_global_init().
--
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists