[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMgsjx8dwKd4xBGe@google.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:50:07 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/12] KVM: arm64: Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 03:22:41 +0100,
> Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Stop depending on CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_TLB_FLUSH_ALL and opt to
> > standardize on kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() since it avoids
> > duplicating the generic TLB stats across architectures that implement
> > their own remote TLB flush.
> >
> > This adds an extra function call to the ARM64 kvm_flush_remote_tlbs()
> > path, but that is a small cost in comparison to flushing remote TLBs.
>
> Well, there is no such thing as a "remote TLB" anyway. We either have
> a non-shareable or inner-shareable invalidation. The notion of remote
> would imply that we track who potentially has a TLB, which we
> obviously don't.
Maybe kvm_arch_flush_vm_tlbs()? The "remote" part is misleading even on x86 when
running on Hyper-V, as the flush may be done via a single hypercall and by kicking
"remote" vCPUs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists