From patchwork Wed Sep 11 15:22:51 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jan Beulich X-Patchwork-Id: 11141353 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FE21395 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:24:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D032B207FC for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:24:07 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D032B207FC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i84SM-0002F4-WB; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:22:54 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i84SL-0002Em-39 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:22:53 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 05443ff0-d4a8-11e9-b299-bc764e2007e4 Received: from mx1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 05443ff0-d4a8-11e9-b299-bc764e2007e4; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:22:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AABD0ACC4; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:22:51 +0000 (UTC) From: Jan Beulich To: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:22:51 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/9] x86/mm: honor opt_pcid also for 32-bit PV domains X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: George Dunlap , Andrew Cooper , Wei Liu , =?utf-8?q?Roger_Pau_Monn=C3=A9?= Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" I can't see any technical or performance reason why we should treat 32-bit PV different from 64-bit PV in this regard. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/domain.c @@ -180,7 +180,24 @@ int switch_compat(struct domain *d) d->arch.x87_fip_width = 4; d->arch.pv.xpti = false; - d->arch.pv.pcid = false; + + if ( use_invpcid && cpu_has_pcid ) + switch ( ACCESS_ONCE(opt_pcid) ) + { + case PCID_OFF: + case PCID_XPTI: + d->arch.pv.pcid = false; + break; + + case PCID_ALL: + case PCID_NOXPTI: + d->arch.pv.pcid = true; + break; + + default: + ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(); + break; + } return 0; @@ -312,7 +329,7 @@ int pv_domain_initialise(struct domain * d->arch.pv.xpti = is_hardware_domain(d) ? opt_xpti_hwdom : opt_xpti_domu; - if ( !is_pv_32bit_domain(d) && use_invpcid && cpu_has_pcid ) + if ( use_invpcid && cpu_has_pcid ) switch ( ACCESS_ONCE(opt_pcid) ) { case PCID_OFF: