From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: KVM: Invoke compute_layout() before alternatives are applied Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 12:12:10 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <41a90c16d6958e70524c1c54b63a7f50@www.loen.fr> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20191206115716.GC32767@arrakis.emea.arm.com> On 2019-12-06 11:57, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:58:05PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > wrote: >> @@ -408,6 +410,8 @@ static void __init hyp_mode_check(void) >> "CPU: CPUs started in inconsistent modes"); >> else >> pr_info("CPU: All CPU(s) started at EL1\n"); >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST)) >> + kvm_compute_layout(); >> } > > It looks like we call this unconditionally here even if the kernel > was > booted at EL1. It has always been the case. My motivation was to be able to debug this in a guest, because doing this on the host is... painful! ;-) Feel free to condition it on !EL1 though. > >> void __init smp_cpus_done(unsigned int max_cpus) >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c >> index 2cf7d4b606c38..dab1fea4752aa 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c >> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ static u8 tag_lsb; >> static u64 tag_val; >> static u64 va_mask; >> >> -static void compute_layout(void) >> +__init void kvm_compute_layout(void) >> { >> phys_addr_t idmap_addr = __pa_symbol(__hyp_idmap_text_start); >> u64 hyp_va_msb; >> @@ -110,9 +110,6 @@ void __init kvm_update_va_mask(struct alt_instr >> *alt, >> >> BUG_ON(nr_inst != 5); >> >> - if (!has_vhe() && !va_mask) >> - compute_layout(); >> - >> for (i = 0; i < nr_inst; i++) { >> u32 rd, rn, insn, oinsn; >> >> @@ -156,9 +153,6 @@ void kvm_patch_vector_branch(struct alt_instr >> *alt, >> return; >> } >> >> - if (!va_mask) >> - compute_layout(); > > And here we had a few more checks. > > Maybe it's still correct but asking anyway. It should be correct. These checks were there to ensure that we only computed the layout once, and this now happens by construction (calling compute_layout from a single location instead of doing it from the patch callbacks). Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: KVM: Invoke compute_layout() before alternatives are applied Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 12:12:10 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <41a90c16d6958e70524c1c54b63a7f50@www.loen.fr> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20191206115716.GC32767@arrakis.emea.arm.com> On 2019-12-06 11:57, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:58:05PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > wrote: >> @@ -408,6 +410,8 @@ static void __init hyp_mode_check(void) >> "CPU: CPUs started in inconsistent modes"); >> else >> pr_info("CPU: All CPU(s) started at EL1\n"); >> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST)) >> + kvm_compute_layout(); >> } > > It looks like we call this unconditionally here even if the kernel > was > booted at EL1. It has always been the case. My motivation was to be able to debug this in a guest, because doing this on the host is... painful! ;-) Feel free to condition it on !EL1 though. > >> void __init smp_cpus_done(unsigned int max_cpus) >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c >> index 2cf7d4b606c38..dab1fea4752aa 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/va_layout.c >> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ static u8 tag_lsb; >> static u64 tag_val; >> static u64 va_mask; >> >> -static void compute_layout(void) >> +__init void kvm_compute_layout(void) >> { >> phys_addr_t idmap_addr = __pa_symbol(__hyp_idmap_text_start); >> u64 hyp_va_msb; >> @@ -110,9 +110,6 @@ void __init kvm_update_va_mask(struct alt_instr >> *alt, >> >> BUG_ON(nr_inst != 5); >> >> - if (!has_vhe() && !va_mask) >> - compute_layout(); >> - >> for (i = 0; i < nr_inst; i++) { >> u32 rd, rn, insn, oinsn; >> >> @@ -156,9 +153,6 @@ void kvm_patch_vector_branch(struct alt_instr >> *alt, >> return; >> } >> >> - if (!va_mask) >> - compute_layout(); > > And here we had a few more checks. > > Maybe it's still correct but asking anyway. It should be correct. These checks were there to ensure that we only computed the layout once, and this now happens by construction (calling compute_layout from a single location instead of doing it from the patch callbacks). Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-06 12:12 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-10-16 16:59 [PATCH] arm64: KVM: Invoke compute_layout() before alternatives are applied Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2019-10-16 16:59 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2019-10-17 17:41 ` James Morse 2019-10-17 17:41 ` James Morse 2019-11-28 19:58 ` [PATCH v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2019-11-28 19:58 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2019-12-06 11:22 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-12-06 11:22 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-12-06 11:46 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-12-06 11:46 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-12-06 11:57 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-12-06 11:57 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-12-06 12:12 ` Marc Zyngier [this message] 2019-12-06 12:12 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-12-06 12:21 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-12-06 12:21 ` Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=41a90c16d6958e70524c1c54b63a7f50@www.loen.fr \ --to=maz@kernel.org \ --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.