On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 22:50:07 +0100, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 03:22:41 +0100, > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. Yup, this would be much better. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
