[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] vmx: Refactor vpid_sync_vcpu_gva()
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Teddy Astie <teddy.astie@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:34:56 +0200
- Authentication-results: eu.smtp.expurgate.cloud; dkim=pass header.s=selector1 header.d=vates.tech header.i="@vates.tech" header.h="From:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Feedback-ID"
- Autocrypt: addr=teddy.astie@xxxxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDNBGn5sK8BDACuzSrrTjpVf4ay06OYB6yY0J1PqKffihoNMtrQRZjAHxoAPC7LTBVHV/XO Zw5HJc+9R71z1JV+iYg6z3jPziGKzX8Fj3ZXlzJPmpf1PuETH3KdbvtJT4ny+OGntnJntUoR KRPhTirr6yNeBk/637O3CQXjtqFUPZnko8OI/o1yawIBhJJAWicutjkkUgd28Bh6HV9EIumH tCBgn5/1A/fpm9624MMgYLsA8qjC4XsoovQvFCaO8HEhvfzrrTZHjn/nPeB9SigxIxXW8YaT VqMdqul07o72m3eA2mf+LMu9a04FX/d4wbxBLtELm+1jIrbtyaFZEMOLv/haSiS/Lj3btJH/ EoucejoZ5SH49ksmVAmKOLktOaTQ8b2gEvP7iaKiIiszCCtOSRohr+2GvDsDeLvVZnlR3I+S PhHar7TPKjFz0G3DPNolyjXywNqOAMpomSPi8lSwjAFsxOtQbcck/qRGRSNk4DAmH70pA+89 MXfQXZ3qt1Q01B1+sU0I8xsAEQEAAc0kVGVkZHkgQXN0aWUgPHRlZGR5LmFzdGllQHZhdGVz LnRlY2g+wsENBBMBCAA3FiEEGAIew9LzHY3pdrqtZg+p0QLLz9AFAmn5sK8FCQWjmoACGwME CwkIBwUVCAkKCwUWAgMBAAAKCRBmD6nRAsvP0ID6DACGOktArFbLKHNzuyOVCskwfUZPla6Z pd3GZ8r61SrAKePIr2BnpgPkd0hV3bSRkRLIrgjzR2NRCzfp0x0HfuhcYfAYPR46XHTvjaJE v99sT/vGUG1BZguYDOScSEpgSNaNlYum3RKZbMuROxdK8G+YHccJY8PvWSq2K2yiae2KGiAv 1yjnZxug9/PtDfX8vQFUSg2w1ukRDf50wvDohN1zUQfFtofOP2xCRsDZiHAlQ0pF+aUjXQhP eP3IdpfWc8cyRLXF06Rk46YMYCytweGtGdHcqAfrVthl84129ZPN422k/voW0sm14gjYlGcT UwgnYlFRk2FLq0QeKEDcS0aj3o3EVAQCrayoGzi1pnlIKE3PRGUcUzjGVvzQ/po24gOjwba9 Egr/Wmu3MQlx/7A8zT5QBzF/n+RYdLNQ0Eu6YnUwf0Z1uieqNaon+olyIRFiLb/hCZHO6ekN f5vrm2clHUbQAYaPQebknujoKBo6ZLHg0WM1gZS01Gz+aUpKsUfOwM0EafmwsAEMAKiQiZa3 yQMmc/h3sDbfVHPSiBA4IMI/NAB7IotzPHq1GzCpsoVILAhF/INbWjxJ3DbVf+en3/FvdVZg 2S38xtnth0njNdlVKpyxm054phKjbdoFDwaknWolS4hrddTmetSG5/52AjtmPFtlXAk0NmLv fJnW3seXVQbgM7sW/MNXPP5UKDpkGnLhnvej+GU0s3109sJeXT5ImVdphFs9cvyZyBT9t1Pb Rowv58EgV0zE4hbAeVkULAbxFV5b/ExTjjGVHoX7CVhWxvCiTqCUoXZRkUE9C3FnkzEFRkKb Yu6NCfiHfEyB3Xyg9hfdrRgjMRq907zCof+nDtWxGz1MSEuvTj1g9GZ049Bennqzjc/Q+0ov XoK4jm+Py0FiUGUaA6yhexficjH+kCR/xDbVnWrMhSLB4AuTBT9HjfZI6gk3uYLhoT8Pig4/ eVtR2Q1wZIJsFToR6ofGuyECwFcs+PUXN7fmGRSiPXgjAr/zIUBdW0VWCE3OGPNqtRk2E5s6 IQARAQABwsD8BBgBCAAmFiEEGAIew9LzHY3pdrqtZg+p0QLLz9AFAmn5sLAFCQWjmoACGwwA CgkQZg+p0QLLz9DncQwAg76IehTemLIfrB8T9WIBZrI4kUV7G7a4rjiVoUiHYN5QwhnbZnsa JDlt+Ezoqy/510eo2bCSzvW5xXYPgyjcuOPwgQo1Qp764QxyX6rld2f2RcWkDuBHun55ZWXj by8o21ginPRwruBVYY5rVf3DV1iBu4NurUeHtyFk/dS0XTOQi2wVUb17sW/+ybCEokdVacZG zOqP/OmwHrF8ylXlXnhQq6e3r+J+T8fuoGJelm/CJiMwyP6cEWE8sxVqX/iqwjwUYkuOCpE+ lOWSvdNHgoEkWR0RXBPQjnGmLKbfTl/QDXLk6NP2/r9uxm2HL6Ei3QJKSEdrp+XZaVnk/Off O485NOTKwGOxyWb006cTMh53xPkAJFQu4Tvdj+odsHz88jqw5wfPG0BYWx0I/FspYj7N9kZR 8ULR9nX0LvpzJ/kB4NgHIUt8YtIL6ZSfM2dbF7fKzvx1UqFfvozJZwFzfEieJLXa4nlGgR6D x9fhaZEsniw8/bYgC3igkk5YJiOa
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 09:35:16 +0000
- Feedback-id: default:8631fc262581453bbf619ec5b2062170:Sweego
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
Le 10/09/2026 à 17:45, Jan Beulich a écrit :
On 31.07.2026 16:46, Teddy Astie wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vmx/vmx.h
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vmx/vmx.h
@@ -460,19 +460,16 @@ static inline void vpid_sync_vcpu_gva(struct vcpu *v,
unsigned long gva)
* If individual address invalidation is not supported, we escalate to
* use single context invalidation.
*/
- if ( likely(cpu_has_vmx_vpid_invvpid_individual_addr) )
- goto execute_invvpid;
-
- type = INVVPID_SINGLE_CONTEXT;
+ if ( unlikely(!cpu_has_vmx_vpid_invvpid_individual_addr) )
+ type = INVVPID_SINGLE_CONTEXT;
/*
* If single context invalidation is not supported, we escalate to
* use all context invalidation.
*/
- if ( !cpu_has_vmx_vpid_invvpid_single_context )
+ if ( unlikely(!cpu_has_vmx_vpid_invvpid_single_context) )
type = INVVPID_ALL_CONTEXT;
-execute_invvpid:
__invvpid(type, v->arch.hvm.n1asid.asid, (u64)gva);
}
But this isn't functionally identical to the original, at least in the
cpu_has_vmx_vpid_invvpid_individual_addr &&
!cpu_has_vmx_vpid_invvpid_single_context case. We'd now end up using
INVVPID_ALL_CONTEXT there, when it wants to continue to be
INVVPID_INDIVIDUAL_ADDR.
Yes, though a good question is to know if there exist a CPU that has
INVVPID_INDIVIDUAL_ADDR without INVVPID_SINGLE_CONTEXT; otherwise, we
can just say that this is not supposed to happen.
One alternative I have in mind would be to have cascading fallbacks to
"larger scope" alternatives.
i.e
static inline void vpid_sync_all(void)
{
__invvpid(INVVPID_ALL_CONTEXT, 0, 0);
}
static inline void vpid_sync_vcpu_context(const struct vcpu *v)
{
/*
* If single context invalidation is not supported, we escalate to
* use all context invalidation.
*/
if ( unlikely(!cpu_has_vmx_vpid_invvpid_single_context) )
return vpid_sync_all();
__invvpid(INVVPID_SINGLE_CONTEXT, v->arch.hvm.n1asid.asid, 0);
}
static inline void vpid_sync_vcpu_gva(struct vcpu *v, unsigned long gva)
{
/*
* If individual address invalidation is not supported, we escalate to
* use single context invalidation.
*/
if ( unlikely(!cpu_has_vmx_vpid_invvpid_individual_addr) )
return vpid_sync_vcpu_context(v);
__invvpid(INVVPID_INDIVIDUAL_ADDR, v->arch.hvm.n1asid.asid, (u64)gva);
}
That requires introducing vpid_sync_vcpu_context() ahead, but would
avoid the corner case without making things too complex.
Jan
Teddy
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
|