On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28 PM Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sure, I'll change it to kvm_arch_flush_vm_tlbs() in v8. > While working on the renaming, I realized that since this function is called from kvm_main.c's kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(). Do we want to rename this and the other kvm_flush_*() functions that the series introduces to match their kvm_arch_flush_*() counterparts? (spiraling more into this, we also have the 'remote_tlb_flush_requests' and 'remote_tlb_flush' stats) Thank you. Raghavendra > Thanks, > Raghavendra > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:55 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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.
