Thread (25 messages) 25 messages, 3 authors, 2023-08-17

Re: [PATCH v9 05/14] KVM: Allow range-based TLB invalidation from common code

From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: 2023-08-15 22:30:52
Also in: kvm, kvm-riscv, kvmarm, linux-mips, linux-riscv, lkml

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
index ec169f5c7dce2..00f7bda9202f2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c
@@ -278,16 +278,14 @@ static inline bool kvm_available_flush_remote_tlbs_range(void)
 	return kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range;
 }
 
-void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn,
-				 gfn_t nr_pages)
+int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn, u64 nr_pages)
 {
 	int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
 
 	if (kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range)
-		ret = static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, start_gfn,
-								   nr_pages);
-	if (ret)
-		kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
+		ret = static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, gfn, nr_pages);
+
+	return ret;
Please write this as

	if (kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range)
		return static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, gfn, nr_pages);

	return -EOPNOTSUPP;

or alternatively

	if (!kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range)
		return -EOPNOTSUPP;

	return static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, gfn, nr_pages);

Hmm, I'll throw my official vote for the second version.

The local "ret" is unnecessary and is suprisingly dangerous.  I screwed up the
conflict resolution when cherry-picking my CONFIG_HYPERV change to see what the
conflict looked like and ended up with a double flush:

	int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;

	if (kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range)
		ret = static_call(kvm_x86_flush_remote_tlbs_range)(kvm, gfn, nr_pages);

	if (ret)
		kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);

	return ret;

Dropping "ret" makes it much harder to get trigger happy when resolving conflicts.

No need for a new version to fix the above, assuming Marc/Oliver is ok doing
fixup when applying.

Nit aside, looks good for x86, and I know of no conflicts, so take 'er away!

Acked-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help