On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:09:08AM +0000, "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 11:22 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:15:13AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote: > > > > > > Can be called locally or through an IPI function call. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. As in another reply, if using spinlock is OK, then I think we can say > > > it will be called either locally or through an IPI function call. Otherwise, we > > > do via a new separate function tdx_global_init() and no lock is needed in that > > > function. The caller should call it properly. > > > > IPI must use raw_spinlock_t. I'm ok with using raw_spinlock_t if there's > > actual need for that, but the code as presented didn't -- in comments or > > otherwise -- make it clear why it was as it was. > > There's no hard requirement as I replied in another email. > > Presumably you prefer the option to have a dedicated tdx_global_init() so we can > avoid the raw_spinlock_t? TDX KVM calls tdx_cpu_enable() in IPI context as KVM hardware_setup() callback. tdx_cpu_enable() calls tdx_global_init(). -- Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@xxxxxxxxx>
