| Message ID | 20230808231330.3855936-3-rananta@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | KVM: arm64: Add support for FEAT_TLBIRANGE | expand |
On 8/9/23 09:13, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > There's no reason for the architectures to declare > kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() in their own headers. Hence to > avoid this duplication, make the declaration global, leaving > the architectures to define only __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS > as needed. > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> > --- > arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 - > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > index 9b0ad8f3bf327..54a85f1d4f2c8 100644 > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > @@ -897,6 +897,5 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} > > #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS > -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); > > #endif /* __MIPS_KVM_HOST_H__ */ > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > index e3f968b38ae97..ade5d4500c2ce 100644 > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm) > { > return -ENOTSUPP; > } > +#else > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); > #endif > > #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA Is the declaration inconsistent to that in arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h? In order to keep them consistent, I guess we need move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() from x86's header file to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c and 'inline' needs to be dropped. Thanks, Gavin
Hi Gavin, On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:00 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 8/9/23 09:13, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > There's no reason for the architectures to declare > > kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() in their own headers. Hence to > > avoid this duplication, make the declaration global, leaving > > the architectures to define only __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS > > as needed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> > > --- > > arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 - > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 ++ > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > index 9b0ad8f3bf327..54a85f1d4f2c8 100644 > > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > @@ -897,6 +897,5 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} > > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} > > > > #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS > > -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); > > > > #endif /* __MIPS_KVM_HOST_H__ */ > > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > index e3f968b38ae97..ade5d4500c2ce 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm) > > { > > return -ENOTSUPP; > > } > > +#else > > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); > > #endif > > > > #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA > > Is the declaration inconsistent to that in arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h? > In order to keep them consistent, I guess we need move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() > from x86's header file to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c and 'inline' needs to be dropped. > Unsure of the original intentions, I didn't want to disturb any existing arrangements. If more people agree to this refactoring, I'm happy to move. Thank you. Raghavendra > Thanks, > Gavin >
On 8/10/23 00:38, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > Hi Gavin, > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:00 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 8/9/23 09:13, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: >>> There's no reason for the architectures to declare >>> kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() in their own headers. Hence to >>> avoid this duplication, make the declaration global, leaving >>> the architectures to define only __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS >>> as needed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> >>> --- >>> arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 - >>> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 ++ >>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h >>> index 9b0ad8f3bf327..54a85f1d4f2c8 100644 >>> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h >>> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h >>> @@ -897,6 +897,5 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} >>> static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} >>> >>> #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS >>> -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); >>> >>> #endif /* __MIPS_KVM_HOST_H__ */ >>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h >>> index e3f968b38ae97..ade5d4500c2ce 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h >>> @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm) >>> { >>> return -ENOTSUPP; >>> } >>> +#else >>> +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); >>> #endif >>> >>> #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA >> >> Is the declaration inconsistent to that in arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h? >> In order to keep them consistent, I guess we need move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() >> from x86's header file to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c and 'inline' needs to be dropped. >> > Unsure of the original intentions, I didn't want to disturb any > existing arrangements. If more people agree to this refactoring, I'm > happy to move. This is amazing to me. This change can be compiled without any error even if the declaration inconsistent between the kvm_host.h and x86's header file. I'm curious which option make it possible? Thanks, Shaoqin > > Thank you. > Raghavendra >> Thanks, >> Gavin >> >
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 5:26 AM Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 8/10/23 00:38, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > Hi Gavin, > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:00 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 8/9/23 09:13, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > >>> There's no reason for the architectures to declare > >>> kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() in their own headers. Hence to > >>> avoid this duplication, make the declaration global, leaving > >>> the architectures to define only __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS > >>> as needed. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> > >>> --- > >>> arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 - > >>> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 ++ > >>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > >>> index 9b0ad8f3bf327..54a85f1d4f2c8 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > >>> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > >>> @@ -897,6 +897,5 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} > >>> static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} > >>> > >>> #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS > >>> -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); > >>> > >>> #endif /* __MIPS_KVM_HOST_H__ */ > >>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > >>> index e3f968b38ae97..ade5d4500c2ce 100644 > >>> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h > >>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > >>> @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm) > >>> { > >>> return -ENOTSUPP; > >>> } > >>> +#else > >>> +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); > >>> #endif > >>> > >>> #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA > >> > >> Is the declaration inconsistent to that in arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h? > >> In order to keep them consistent, I guess we need move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() > >> from x86's header file to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c and 'inline' needs to be dropped. > >> > > Unsure of the original intentions, I didn't want to disturb any > > existing arrangements. If more people agree to this refactoring, I'm > > happy to move. > > This is amazing to me. This change can be compiled without any error > even if the declaration inconsistent between the kvm_host.h and x86's > header file. > > I'm curious which option make it possible? > After doing some experiments, I think it works because of the order in which the inline-definition and the declaration are laid out. If the 'inline' part of the function comes first and then the declaration, we don't see any error. However if the positions were reversed, we would see an error. (I'm not sure what the technical reason for this is). Just to be safe, I can move the definition to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c as a non-inline function. Thank you. Raghavendra > Thanks, > Shaoqin > > > > > Thank you. > > Raghavendra > >> Thanks, > >> Gavin > >> > > > > -- > Shaoqin >
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 5:26 AM Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 8/10/23 00:38, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > >>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > >>> index e3f968b38ae97..ade5d4500c2ce 100644 > > >>> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > >>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > >>> @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm) > > >>> { > > >>> return -ENOTSUPP; > > >>> } > > >>> +#else > > >>> +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); > > >>> #endif > > >>> > > >>> #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA > > >> > > >> Is the declaration inconsistent to that in arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h? > > >> In order to keep them consistent, I guess we need move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() > > >> from x86's header file to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c and 'inline' needs to be dropped. > > >> > > > Unsure of the original intentions, I didn't want to disturb any > > > existing arrangements. If more people agree to this refactoring, I'm > > > happy to move. > > > > This is amazing to me. This change can be compiled without any error > > even if the declaration inconsistent between the kvm_host.h and x86's > > header file. > > > > I'm curious which option make it possible? > > > After doing some experiments, I think it works because of the order in > which the inline-definition and the declaration are laid out. If the > 'inline' part of the function comes first and then the declaration, we > don't see any error. However if the positions were reversed, we would > see an error. (I'm not sure what the technical reason for this is). > > Just to be safe, I can move the definition to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > as a non-inline function. No need, asm/kvm_host.h _must_ be included before the declaration, otherwise the declaration wouldn't be made because __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS wouldn't be defined. I.e. we won't run into issues where the non-static declaration comes before the static inline definition. C99 explicitly covers this case: 6.2.2 Linkages of identifiers ... If the declaration of a file scope identifier for an object or a function contains the storage- class specifier static, the identifier has internal linkage. For an identifier declared with the storage-class specifier extern in a scope in which a prior declaration of that identifier is visible if the prior declaration specifies internal or external linkage, the linkage of the identifier at the later declaration is the same as the linkage specified at the prior declaration. If no prior declaration is visible, or if the prior declaration specifies no linkage, then the identifier has external linkage. In short, because the "static inline" declared internal linkage first, it wins.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 3:20 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 5:26 AM Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 8/10/23 00:38, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > > >>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > > >>> index e3f968b38ae97..ade5d4500c2ce 100644 > > > >>> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > > >>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > > > >>> @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm) > > > >>> { > > > >>> return -ENOTSUPP; > > > >>> } > > > >>> +#else > > > >>> +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); > > > >>> #endif > > > >>> > > > >>> #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA > > > >> > > > >> Is the declaration inconsistent to that in arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h? > > > >> In order to keep them consistent, I guess we need move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() > > > >> from x86's header file to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c and 'inline' needs to be dropped. > > > >> > > > > Unsure of the original intentions, I didn't want to disturb any > > > > existing arrangements. If more people agree to this refactoring, I'm > > > > happy to move. > > > > > > This is amazing to me. This change can be compiled without any error > > > even if the declaration inconsistent between the kvm_host.h and x86's > > > header file. > > > > > > I'm curious which option make it possible? > > > > > After doing some experiments, I think it works because of the order in > > which the inline-definition and the declaration are laid out. If the > > 'inline' part of the function comes first and then the declaration, we > > don't see any error. However if the positions were reversed, we would > > see an error. (I'm not sure what the technical reason for this is). > > > > Just to be safe, I can move the definition to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > as a non-inline function. > > No need, asm/kvm_host.h _must_ be included before the declaration, otherwise the > declaration wouldn't be made because __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS wouldn't > be defined. I.e. we won't run into issues where the non-static declaration comes > before the static inline definition. > > C99 explicitly covers this case: > > 6.2.2 Linkages of identifiers > > ... > > If the declaration of a file scope identifier for an object or a function contains the storage- > class specifier static, the identifier has internal linkage. > > For an identifier declared with the storage-class specifier extern in a scope in which a > prior declaration of that identifier is visible if the prior declaration specifies internal or > external linkage, the linkage of the identifier at the later declaration is the same as the > linkage specified at the prior declaration. If no prior declaration is visible, or if the prior > declaration specifies no linkage, then the identifier has external linkage. > > In short, because the "static inline" declared internal linkage first, it wins. Thanks for sharing this! I can keep the 'static inline' definition as is then. However, since a later patch (patch-05/14) defines kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range() in arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c, do you think we can move this definition to the .c file as well for consistency? Thank you. Raghavendra Raghavendra
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 3:20 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > > After doing some experiments, I think it works because of the order in > > > which the inline-definition and the declaration are laid out. If the > > > 'inline' part of the function comes first and then the declaration, we > > > don't see any error. However if the positions were reversed, we would > > > see an error. (I'm not sure what the technical reason for this is). > > > > > > Just to be safe, I can move the definition to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > > as a non-inline function. > > > > No need, asm/kvm_host.h _must_ be included before the declaration, otherwise the > > declaration wouldn't be made because __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS wouldn't > > be defined. I.e. we won't run into issues where the non-static declaration comes > > before the static inline definition. > > > > C99 explicitly covers this case: > > > > 6.2.2 Linkages of identifiers > > > > ... > > > > If the declaration of a file scope identifier for an object or a function contains the storage- > > class specifier static, the identifier has internal linkage. > > > > For an identifier declared with the storage-class specifier extern in a scope in which a > > prior declaration of that identifier is visible if the prior declaration specifies internal or > > external linkage, the linkage of the identifier at the later declaration is the same as the > > linkage specified at the prior declaration. If no prior declaration is visible, or if the prior > > declaration specifies no linkage, then the identifier has external linkage. > > > > In short, because the "static inline" declared internal linkage first, it wins. > Thanks for sharing this! I can keep the 'static inline' definition as > is then. However, since a later patch (patch-05/14) defines > kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range() in arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c, do you > think we can move this definition to the .c file as well for > consistency? We "can", but I don't see any reason to do so. Trying to make helpers consistently inline or not is usually a fools errand. And in this case, I'd actually rather go the opposite direction and make the range variant an inline. Ha! And I can justify that with minimal effort. The below makes the helper a straight passthrough for CONFIG_HYPERV=n builds, at which point I think it makes sense for it to be inline. If it won't slow your series down even more, any objection to sliding the below patch in somewhere before patch 5? And then add a patch to inline the range-based helper? Disclaimer: compile tested only. --- From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:58:53 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Declare flush_remote_tlbs{_range}() hooks iff HYPERV!=n Declare the kvm_x86_ops hooks used to wire up paravirt TLB flushes when running under Hyper-V if and only if CONFIG_HYPERV!=n. Wrapping yet more code with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) eliminates a handful of conditional branches, and makes it super obvious why the hooks *might* be valid. Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> --- arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h | 2 ++ arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++++ arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 6 ++++++ 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h index 13bc212cd4bc..6bc1ab0627b7 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h @@ -54,8 +54,10 @@ KVM_X86_OP(set_rflags) KVM_X86_OP(get_if_flag) KVM_X86_OP(flush_tlb_all) KVM_X86_OP(flush_tlb_current) +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL(flush_remote_tlbs) KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL(flush_remote_tlbs_range) +#endif KVM_X86_OP(flush_tlb_gva) KVM_X86_OP(flush_tlb_guest) KVM_X86_OP(vcpu_pre_run) diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h index 60d430b4650f..04fc80112dfe 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h @@ -1604,9 +1604,11 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops { void (*flush_tlb_all)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); void (*flush_tlb_current)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) int (*flush_remote_tlbs)(struct kvm *kvm); int (*flush_remote_tlbs_range)(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn, gfn_t nr_pages); +#endif /* * Flush any TLB entries associated with the given GVA. @@ -1814,6 +1816,7 @@ static inline struct kvm *kvm_arch_alloc_vm(void) #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VM_FREE void kvm_arch_free_vm(struct kvm *kvm); +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm) { @@ -1823,6 +1826,7 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm) else return -ENOTSUPP; } +#endif #define kvm_arch_pmi_in_guest(vcpu) \ ((vcpu) && (vcpu)->arch.handling_intr_from_guest) diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c index 9e4cd8b4a202..0189dfecce1f 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c @@ -271,18 +271,24 @@ static inline unsigned long kvm_mmu_get_guest_pgd(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, static inline bool kvm_available_flush_remote_tlbs_range(void) { +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) return kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range; +#else + return false; +#endif } void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn, gfn_t nr_pages) { +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) 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) +#endif kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm); } base-commit: bc9e68820274c025840d3056d63f938d74ca35bb --
On 8/9/23 07:13, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > There's no reason for the architectures to declare > kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() in their own headers. Hence to > avoid this duplication, make the declaration global, leaving > the architectures to define only __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS > as needed. > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> Reviewed-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> > --- > arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 - > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > index 9b0ad8f3bf327..54a85f1d4f2c8 100644 > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h > @@ -897,6 +897,5 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} > static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} > > #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS > -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); > > #endif /* __MIPS_KVM_HOST_H__ */ > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > index e3f968b38ae97..ade5d4500c2ce 100644 > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h > @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm) > { > return -ENOTSUPP; > } > +#else > +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); > #endif > > #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 4:04 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 3:20 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > > > After doing some experiments, I think it works because of the order in > > > > which the inline-definition and the declaration are laid out. If the > > > > 'inline' part of the function comes first and then the declaration, we > > > > don't see any error. However if the positions were reversed, we would > > > > see an error. (I'm not sure what the technical reason for this is). > > > > > > > > Just to be safe, I can move the definition to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > > > > as a non-inline function. > > > > > > No need, asm/kvm_host.h _must_ be included before the declaration, otherwise the > > > declaration wouldn't be made because __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS wouldn't > > > be defined. I.e. we won't run into issues where the non-static declaration comes > > > before the static inline definition. > > > > > > C99 explicitly covers this case: > > > > > > 6.2.2 Linkages of identifiers > > > > > > ... > > > > > > If the declaration of a file scope identifier for an object or a function contains the storage- > > > class specifier static, the identifier has internal linkage. > > > > > > For an identifier declared with the storage-class specifier extern in a scope in which a > > > prior declaration of that identifier is visible if the prior declaration specifies internal or > > > external linkage, the linkage of the identifier at the later declaration is the same as the > > > linkage specified at the prior declaration. If no prior declaration is visible, or if the prior > > > declaration specifies no linkage, then the identifier has external linkage. > > > > > > In short, because the "static inline" declared internal linkage first, it wins. > > Thanks for sharing this! I can keep the 'static inline' definition as > > is then. However, since a later patch (patch-05/14) defines > > kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range() in arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c, do you > > think we can move this definition to the .c file as well for > > consistency? > > We "can", but I don't see any reason to do so. Trying to make helpers consistently > inline or not is usually a fools errand. And in this case, I'd actually rather go > the opposite direction and make the range variant an inline. > > Ha! And I can justify that with minimal effort. The below makes the helper a > straight passthrough for CONFIG_HYPERV=n builds, at which point I think it makes > sense for it to be inline. > > If it won't slow your series down even more, any objection to sliding the below > patch in somewhere before patch 5? And then add a patch to inline the range-based > helper? > Since it is a little diverted from the rest of the series' goal (and yes, the slowing down part), do you mind if we send it as a separate series? :) I'll keep the functions as we have on v8 for now. Thank you. Raghavendra > Disclaimer: compile tested only. > > --- > From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> > Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:58:53 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Declare flush_remote_tlbs{_range}() hooks iff > HYPERV!=n > > Declare the kvm_x86_ops hooks used to wire up paravirt TLB flushes when > running under Hyper-V if and only if CONFIG_HYPERV!=n. Wrapping yet more > code with IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) eliminates a handful of conditional > branches, and makes it super obvious why the hooks *might* be valid. > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h | 2 ++ > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++++ > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c | 6 ++++++ > 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h > index 13bc212cd4bc..6bc1ab0627b7 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm-x86-ops.h > @@ -54,8 +54,10 @@ KVM_X86_OP(set_rflags) > KVM_X86_OP(get_if_flag) > KVM_X86_OP(flush_tlb_all) > KVM_X86_OP(flush_tlb_current) > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) > KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL(flush_remote_tlbs) > KVM_X86_OP_OPTIONAL(flush_remote_tlbs_range) > +#endif > KVM_X86_OP(flush_tlb_gva) > KVM_X86_OP(flush_tlb_guest) > KVM_X86_OP(vcpu_pre_run) > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > index 60d430b4650f..04fc80112dfe 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h > @@ -1604,9 +1604,11 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops { > > void (*flush_tlb_all)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > void (*flush_tlb_current)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu); > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) > int (*flush_remote_tlbs)(struct kvm *kvm); > int (*flush_remote_tlbs_range)(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t gfn, > gfn_t nr_pages); > +#endif > > /* > * Flush any TLB entries associated with the given GVA. > @@ -1814,6 +1816,7 @@ static inline struct kvm *kvm_arch_alloc_vm(void) > #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VM_FREE > void kvm_arch_free_vm(struct kvm *kvm); > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) > #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLB > static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm) > { > @@ -1823,6 +1826,7 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm) > else > return -ENOTSUPP; > } > +#endif > > #define kvm_arch_pmi_in_guest(vcpu) \ > ((vcpu) && (vcpu)->arch.handling_intr_from_guest) > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > index 9e4cd8b4a202..0189dfecce1f 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c > @@ -271,18 +271,24 @@ static inline unsigned long kvm_mmu_get_guest_pgd(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > > static inline bool kvm_available_flush_remote_tlbs_range(void) > { > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) > return kvm_x86_ops.flush_remote_tlbs_range; > +#else > + return false; > +#endif > } > > void kvm_flush_remote_tlbs_range(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t start_gfn, > gfn_t nr_pages) > { > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV) > 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) > +#endif > kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm); > } > > > base-commit: bc9e68820274c025840d3056d63f938d74ca35bb > -- >
diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h index 9b0ad8f3bf327..54a85f1d4f2c8 100644 --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h @@ -897,6 +897,5 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {} #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); #endif /* __MIPS_KVM_HOST_H__ */ diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h index e3f968b38ae97..ade5d4500c2ce 100644 --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm) { return -ENOTSUPP; } +#else +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm); #endif #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA
There's no reason for the architectures to declare kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() in their own headers. Hence to avoid this duplication, make the declaration global, leaving the architectures to define only __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS as needed. Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com> --- arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 - include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)