On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 22:48:19 +0100,
Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 06:01:29PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > In order to differenciate between architectures that require no extra
> > synchronisation when accessing the dirty ring and those who do,
> > add a new capability (KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING_ORDERED) that identify
> > the latter sort. TSO architectures can obviously advertise both, while
> > relaxed architectures most only advertise the ORDERED version.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/kvm_dirty_ring.h | 6 +++---
> > include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 +
> > virt/kvm/Kconfig | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > virt/kvm/Makefile.kvm | 2 +-
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_dirty_ring.h b/include/linux/kvm_dirty_ring.h
> > index 906f899813dc..7a0c90ae9a3f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_dirty_ring.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_dirty_ring.h
> > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ struct kvm_dirty_ring {
> > int index;
> > };
> >
> > -#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_RING
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_DIRTY_LOG
>
> s/LOG/LOG_RING/ according to the commit message? Or the name seems too
> generic.
The commit message talks about the capability, while the above is the
config option. If you find the names inappropriate, feel free to
suggest alternatives (for all I care, they could be called FOO, BAR
and BAZ).
> Pure question to ask: is it required to have a new cap just for the
> ordering? IIUC if x86 was the only supported anyway before, it means all
> released old kvm binaries are always safe even without the strict
> orderings. As long as we rework all the memory ordering bits before
> declaring support of yet another arch, we're good. Or am I wrong?
Someone will show up with an old userspace which probes for the sole
existing capability, and things start failing subtly. It is quite
likely that the userspace code is built for all architectures, and we
want to make sure that userspace actively buys into the new ordering
requirements. A simple way to do this is to expose a new capability,
making the new requirement obvious. Architectures with relaxed
ordering semantics will only implement the new one, while x86 will
implement both.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
