On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 8:07 AM Sean Christopherson [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Aug 04, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28 PM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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?

Hmm, if we're going to rename one arch hook, then yes, I think it makes sense to
rename all the common APIs and arch hooks to match.

However, x86 is rife with the "remote_tlbs" nomenclature, and renaming the common
APIs will just push the inconsistencies into x86.  While I 100% agree that the
current naming is flawed, I am not willing to end up with x86 being partially
converted.

I think I'm ok renaming all of x86's many hooks?  But I'd definitely want input
from more x86 folks, and the size and scope of this series would explode.  Unless
Marc objects and/or has a better idea, the least awful option is probably to ignore
the poor "remote_tlbs" naming and tackle it in a separate series.

Sure, I think it's better to do it in a separate series as well. I'm
happy to carry out the task after this one gets merged. But, let's
wait for Marc and others' opinion on the matter.

Thank you.
Raghavendra

Sorry for not noticiing this earlier, I didn't realize just how much x86 uses
remote_tlbs.

quoted

(spiraling more into this, we also have the 'remote_tlb_flush_requests' and
'remote_tlb_flush' stats)

Regardless of what we decide for the APIs, definitely leave the stats alone.  The
names are ABI.  We could preserve the names and changes the struct fields, but that
would be a net negative IMO.

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