> +/**
> + * gmap_pmdp_idte_global - invalidate and clear a guest pmd entry
> + * @mm: pointer to the process mm_struct
> + * @vmaddr: virtual address in the process address space
> + */
> +void gmap_pmdp_idte_global(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vmaddr)
> +{
> + unsigned long *entry, gaddr;
> + struct gmap *gmap;
> + pmd_t *pmdp;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(gmap, &mm->context.gmap_list, list) {
> + spin_lock(&gmap->guest_table_lock);
> + entry = radix_tree_delete(&gmap->host_to_guest,
> + vmaddr >> PMD_SHIFT);
> + if (entry) {
> + pmdp = (pmd_t *)entry;
> + gaddr = __gmap_segment_gaddr(entry);
> + WARN_ON(*entry & ~_SEGMENT_ENTRY_HARDWARE_BITS_LARGE);
> + if (MACHINE_HAS_TLB_GUEST)
> + __pmdp_idte(gaddr, pmdp,
> + IDTE_GUEST_ASCE,
> + gmap->asce, IDTE_GLOBAL);
> + else if (MACHINE_HAS_IDTE)
> + __pmdp_idte(gaddr, pmdp, 0, 0,
> + IDTE_GLOBAL);
> + else
> + __pmdp_csp(pmdp);
> + *entry = _SEGMENT_ENTRY_EMPTY;
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&gmap->guest_table_lock);
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gmap_pmdp_idte_global);
AFAICS, gmap_pmdp_idte_local and gmap_pmdp_idte_global are 99% the same.
Would it make sense to have a gmap_pmdp_idte() with an additional
parameter (e.g. bool global or int idte_type) and let these two
functions call it? (similar to gmap_pmdp_clear)
Apart from that, looks good to me (not an expert of the different
flushing mechanisms involved :) )
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
