On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 12:09 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 02:23:17PM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 5:53 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 05:23:37PM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > > Implement kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range() for arm64,
> > > > such that it can utilize the TLBI range based instructions
> > > > if supported.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 +++
> > > > arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > index dee530d75b957..211fab0c1de74 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > @@ -1002,6 +1002,9 @@ struct kvm *kvm_arch_alloc_vm(void);
> > > > #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS
> > > > int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > >
> > > > +#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS_RANGE
> > > > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn, u64 pages);
> > > > +
> > > > static inline bool kvm_vm_is_protected(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > {
> > > > return false;
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > > > index e98910a8d0af6..409cb187f4911 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c
> > > > @@ -91,6 +91,21 @@ int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn, u64 pages)
> > > > +{
> > > > + phys_addr_t start, end;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!system_supports_tlb_range())
> > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > >
> > > There's multiple layers of fallback throughout this series, as it would
> > > appear that deep in __kvm_tlb_flush_range() you're blasting the whole
> > > VMID if either the range is too large or the feature isn't supported.
> > >
> > > Is it possible to just normalize on a single spot to gate the use of
> > > range-based invalidations? I have a slight preference for doing it deep
> > > in the handler, as it keeps the upper layers of code a bit more
> > > readable.
> > >
> > I was a little skeptical on this part, since the
> > kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range() expects to return -EOPNOTSUPP if
> > indeed there's no support.
>
> Well, the arch-neutral code can expect whatever it wants :) The only
> real contract we have with it is to return 0 iff the specified range has
> been invalidated, even if that comes with over-invalidating.
>
> > But I see your point. The if-else in kvm_pgtable_stage2_flush_range()
> > seems redundant and I can simply manage this conditions inside
> > __kvm_tlb_flush_range_vmid_ipa() itself, but I'll leave the
> > kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range()'s implementation as is. Thoughts?
>
> The largest concern I had is that the series is testing for FEAT_TLBIRANGE
> all over the shop and I just raised that concern on this patch. AFAICT,
> the iterative approach to invalidating a range of IPAs is effectively
> dead code, as all flows into __kvm_tlb_flush_range_vmid_ipa() are gated
> by system_supports_tlb_range() somewhere.
>
> Personally, I prefer keeping the higher level software models making
> aggressive use of range-based interfaces and letting the actual
> implementation under the hood select the appropriate instruction. That
> helps readability, as it directly communicates the expected outcome of
> the invalidation.
>
> So, if you want to make use of the iterative approach to TLB invalidations on
> !TLBIRANGE systems, then this function should _not_ return EOPNOTSUPP.
>
Thanks for the explanation. I can make the calls consistent across the
code, and let the actual handler deal TLBIRANGE support.
- Raghavendra
> --
> Thanks,
> Oliver
