[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/flushtlb: remove flush_area check on system state


  • To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 09:51:53 +0200
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=HNhs6ubdAZz+cSCatdMToC3lcz9U6UQA5mJlDDIeuj8=; b=H61C+a2nEdTpGaAX8RYS2Os0Kh8TvxjNYO7fhmbPKfrtAw7UrT8MmERAQzQfQTdtDDhz+6biGjZKs7wDI4IzDaiflKOAv5gXBMyVBaw50xWvt9i6Qs1i/1DN88vSQQOBrcWx18MgUlvTz/GxPh3Fe795mAt5IA4TRhwbZU2Lp4kj92bldrAm3+ti+B3be/VIgaIWwmu2EP/YuV9HVAgzQFUICfQOSpGTujQKzDSNEjFfTBfUsgx3ZriEz6ynZl3lW13vURUFhI9VcgSUK1ISqg6K5eOWEFDll2ifQKkQYA6G5xqQ7OXjGFnduxbsrS1j+5j+hRDhPWtF7NTXQiAxtA==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=a4EyOO7l/QyWERSbE1PkKrbetKeFv9CqkP03UFOazBFzua3veM12MgmHI+5w/kA5cDgv7xilok0uuHgoJoT8AMTafy2/IMD+wIVlU3rq4mu/npWI4gHmEOFfAaLG0ehJbFs/zznrNB7W7OEK/g0R5Z+vxswbSFDqcqmk496Qji16SYIEgMoOt0NtGhuti/O+iX8nMsH6Uzj0Ma8yFeFGqIPYe12UOF2bqKXuHCVPNSUl2EttaknBbJULO7bO5EMbyvjoYY4uP+cw2cwch8OZvpmHLvI5wbHegzpOLO1pnaBLrne83t6m/640jgyKso9gWOWkLWyGcnuZKlShPMyK4Q==
  • Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 25 May 2022 07:52:04 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 25.05.2022 09:46, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 09:34:32AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 25.05.2022 09:21, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 08:02:17AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 24.05.2022 18:46, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>> Would you be fine with adding:
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that FLUSH_FORCE_IPI doesn't need to be handled explicitly, as
>>>>> it's main purpose is to prevent the usage of the hypervisor assisted
>>>>> flush if available, not to force the sending of an IPI even for cases
>>>>> where it won't be sent.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, yes, that's even more verbose than I would have expected it to
>>>> be. Just one point: I'm not sure about "main" there. Is there really
>>>> another purpose?
>>>
>>> Right, I should remove main.
>>>
>>>> Of course an alternative would be to rename the flag to properly
>>>> express what it's for (e.g. FLUSH_NO_HV_ASSIST). This would then
>>>> eliminate the need for a comment, afaic at least.
>>>
>>> I think it's likely that we also require this flag if we make use of
>>> hardware assisted flushes in the future, and hence it would better
>>> stay with the current name to avoid renaming in the future.
>>>
>>> Whether the avoidance of sending the IPI is due to hardware or
>>> hypervisor assistance is of no interest to the caller, it only cares
>>> to force a real IPI to be sent to remote processors.
>>
>> Well, then it could still be named FLUSH_NO_ASSIST, since as said
>> (and as you look to agree with) there's no IPI being forced in the
>> general case.
> 
> That would be fine but I don't think it's OK to do in this patch.
> 
> Could do as a prereq if you want, but we should keep in mind the patch
> under discussion is fixing a boot regression, the fact that it
> doesn't trigger in osstest is just because there's no hardware with
> CET Shadow Stacks support in the colo.

Sure - I'll be okay either way, with a preference to the rename over
the addition of a comment.

Jan




 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.