On 12/02/12 01:12, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Antonios Motakis
> <a.motakis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 02/11/2012 06:35 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Antonios Motakis
>>> <a.motakis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 02/10/2012 11:22 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +ENTRY(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid)
>>>>> + hvc #0 @ Switch to Hyp mode
>>>>> + push {r2, r3}
>>>>>
>>>>> + ldrd r2, r3, [r0, #KVM_VTTBR]
>>>>> + mcrr p15, 6, r2, r3, c2 @ Write VTTBR
>>>>> + isb
>>>>> + mcr p15, 0, r0, c8, c7, 0 @ TBLIALL
>>>>> + dsb
>>>>> + isb
>>>>> + mov r2, #0
>>>>> + mov r3, #0
>>>>> + mcrr p15, 6, r2, r3, c2 @ Back to VMID #0
>>>>> + isb
>>>>> +
>>>>> + pop {r2, r3}
>>>>> + hvc #0 @ Back to SVC
>>>>> + mov pc, lr
>>>>> +ENDPROC(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With the last VMID implementation, you could get the equivalent effect of
>>>> a
>>>> per-VMID flush, by just getting a new VMID for the current VM. So you
>>>> could
>>>> do a (kvm->arch.vmid = 0) to force a new VMID when the guest reruns, and
>>>> save the overhead of that flush (you will do a complete flush every 255
>>>> times instead of a small one every single time).
>>>>
>>> to do this you would need to send an IPI if the guest is currently
>>> executing on another CPU and make it exit the guest, so that the VMID
>>> assignment will run before the guest potentially accesses that TLB
>>> entry that points to the page that was just reclaimed - which I am not
>>> sure will be better than this solution.
>>
>> Don't you have to do this anyway? You'd want the flush to be effective on
>> all CPUs before proceeding.
>
> hmm yeah, actually you do need this. Unless the -IS version of the
> flush instruction covers all relevant cores in this case. Marc, I
> don't think that the processor clearing out the page table entry will
> necessarily belong to the same inner-shareable domain as the processor
> potentially executing the VM, so therefore the -IS flushing version
> would not be sufficient and we actually have to go and send an IPI.
If we forget about the 11MPCore (which doesn't broadcast the TLB
invalidation in hardware), the TLBIALLIS operation makes sure all cores
belonging to the same inner shareable domain will see the TLB
invalidation at the same time. If they don't, this is a hardware bug.
Now, I do not have an example of a system where two CPUs are not part of
the same IS domain. Even big.LITTLE has all of the potential 8 cores in
an IS domain. If such a system exists one of these days, then it will be
worth considering having a separate method to cope with the case. Until
then, my opinion is to keep it as simple as possible.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
