On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 6:54 AM Marc Zyngier [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 19 May 2023 01:52:27 +0100,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Define  __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range() (for VHE and nVHE)
to flush a range of stage-2 page-tables using IPA in one go.
If the system supports FEAT_TLBIRANGE, the following patches
would conviniently replace global TLBI such as vmalls12e1is
in the map, unmap, and dirty-logging paths with ripas2e1is
instead.

Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <redacted>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h   |  3 +++
 arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/hyp-main.c | 11 +++++++++
 arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/tlb.c      | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/vhe/tlb.c       | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 88 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
index 43c3bc0f9544d..33352d9399e32 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h

@@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ enum __kvm_host_smccc_func {
      __KVM_HOST_SMCCC_FUNC___pkvm_init_vm,
      __KVM_HOST_SMCCC_FUNC___pkvm_init_vcpu,
      __KVM_HOST_SMCCC_FUNC___pkvm_teardown_vm,
+     __KVM_HOST_SMCCC_FUNC___kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range,

nit: please keep this close to the other TLB operations.

Sure, I'll reorder this.

quoted

 };

 #define DECLARE_KVM_VHE_SYM(sym)     extern char sym[]

@@ -225,6 +226,8 @@ extern void __kvm_flush_vm_context(void);
 extern void __kvm_flush_cpu_context(struct kvm_s2_mmu *mmu);
 extern void __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa(struct kvm_s2_mmu *mmu, phys_addr_t ipa,
                                   int level);
+extern void __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range(struct kvm_s2_mmu *mmu,
+                                     phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end);
 extern void __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid(struct kvm_s2_mmu *mmu);

 extern void __kvm_timer_set_cntvoff(u64 cntvoff);

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/hyp-main.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/hyp-main.c
index 728e01d4536b0..81d30737dc7c9 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/hyp-main.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/hyp-main.c

@@ -125,6 +125,16 @@ static void handle___kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
      __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa(kern_hyp_va(mmu), ipa, level);
 }

+static void
+handle___kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
+{
+     DECLARE_REG(struct kvm_s2_mmu *, mmu, host_ctxt, 1);
+     DECLARE_REG(phys_addr_t, start, host_ctxt, 2);
+     DECLARE_REG(phys_addr_t, end, host_ctxt, 3);
+
+     __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range(kern_hyp_va(mmu), start, end);
+}
+
 static void handle___kvm_tlb_flush_vmid(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
 {
      DECLARE_REG(struct kvm_s2_mmu *, mmu, host_ctxt, 1);

@@ -315,6 +325,7 @@ static const hcall_t host_hcall[] = {
      HANDLE_FUNC(__kvm_vcpu_run),
      HANDLE_FUNC(__kvm_flush_vm_context),
      HANDLE_FUNC(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa),
+     HANDLE_FUNC(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range),
      HANDLE_FUNC(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid),
      HANDLE_FUNC(__kvm_flush_cpu_context),
      HANDLE_FUNC(__kvm_timer_set_cntvoff),

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/tlb.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/tlb.c
index 978179133f4b9..d4ea549c4b5c4 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/tlb.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/tlb.c

@@ -130,6 +130,45 @@ void __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa(struct kvm_s2_mmu *mmu,
      __tlb_switch_to_host(&cxt);
 }

+void __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range(struct kvm_s2_mmu *mmu,
+                             phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
+{
+     struct tlb_inv_context cxt;
+     unsigned long pages, stride;
+
+     /*
+      * Since the range of addresses may not be mapped at
+      * the same level, assume the worst case as PAGE_SIZE
+      */
+     stride = PAGE_SIZE;
+     start = round_down(start, stride);
+     end = round_up(end, stride);
+     pages = (end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+
+     if (!system_supports_tlb_range() || pages >= MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES) {
+             __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid(mmu);
+             return;

Why do we give up on "pages >= MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES"? I see no
rationale for it in the patch. My understanding is that this is the
maximum representable as a range, in which case this is a programming
error.

Or are you *on purpose* making the two equivalent?

Yes basically, I was trying to align the logic with what we have for
__flush_tlb_range(). But, if you feel that it's mostly caused by a
programming error, do we want to not do any flush at all?

Thank you.

Raghavendra

Thanks,

        M.

--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel