All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>, <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	<zenghuiyu96@gmail.com>
Cc: <christoffer.dall@arm.com>, <punit.agrawal@arm.com>,
	<julien.thierry@arm.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<james.morse@arm.com>, <wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com>,
	<kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] KVM: arm64: Force a PTE mapping when logging is enabled
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 19:32:35 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2b60806d-77cd-98a2-e9b7-f2393f2592f7@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c3d64d23-991e-b199-9168-38f37d533afc@arm.com>



On 2019/3/5 19:13, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi Zenghui,
> 
> On 05/03/2019 11:09, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>> Hi Marc, Suzuki,
>>
>> On 2019/3/5 1:34, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Hi Zenghui, Suzuki,
>>>
>>> On 04/03/2019 17:13, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>> Hi Zenghui,
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 11:14:38PM +0800, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>>>>> I think there're still some problems in this patch... Details below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 11:39 AM Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea behind this is: we don't want to keep tracking of huge 
>>>>>> pages when
>>>>>> logging_active is true, which will result in performance 
>>>>>> degradation.  We
>>>>>> still need to set vma_pagesize to PAGE_SIZE, so that we can make 
>>>>>> use of it
>>>>>> to force a PTE mapping.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you're right. We are indeed ignoring the force_pte flag.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Atfer looking into https://patchwork.codeaurora.org/patch/647985/ 
>>>>>> , the
>>>>>> "vma_pagesize = PAGE_SIZE" logic was not intended to be deleted. 
>>>>>> As far
>>>>>> as I can tell, we used to have "hugetlb" to force the PTE mapping, 
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> we have "vma_pagesize" currently instead. We should set it 
>>>>>> properly for
>>>>>> performance reasons (e.g, in VM migration). Did I miss something 
>>>>>> important?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> index 30251e2..7d41b16 100644
>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> @@ -1705,6 +1705,13 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>>>                (vma_pagesize == PUD_SIZE && 
>>>>>> kvm_stage2_has_pmd(kvm))) &&
>>>>>>               !force_pte) {
>>>>>>                   gfn = (fault_ipa & 
>>>>>> huge_page_mask(hstate_vma(vma))) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>>> +       } else {
>>>>>> +               /*
>>>>>> +                * Fallback to PTE if it's not one of the stage2
>>>>>> +                * supported hugepage sizes or the corresponding 
>>>>>> level
>>>>>> +                * doesn't exist, or logging is enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, Instead of "logging is enabled", it should be "force_pte is 
>>>>> true",
>>>>> since "force_pte" will be true when:
>>>>>
>>>>>           1) fault_supports_stage2_pmd_mappings() return false; or
>>>>>           2) "logging is enabled" (e.g, in VM migration).
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, fallback some unsupported hugepage sizes (e.g, 64K hugepage 
>>>>> with
>>>>> 4K pages) to PTE is somewhat strange. And it will then _unexpectedly_
>>>>> reach transparent_hugepage_adjust(), though no real adjustment will 
>>>>> happen
>>>>> since commit fd2ef358282c ("KVM: arm/arm64: Ensure only THP is 
>>>>> candidate
>>>>> for adjustment"). Keeping "vma_pagesize" there as it is will be 
>>>>> better,
>>>>> right?
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'd just simplify the logic like:
>>>>
>>>> We could fix this right in the beginning. See patch below:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           } else if (force_pte) {
>>>>>                   vma_pagesize = PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>>           }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will send a V2 later and waiting for your comments :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> index 30251e2..529331e 100644
>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> @@ -1693,7 +1693,9 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>            return -EFAULT;
>>>>        }
>>>> -    vma_pagesize = vma_kernel_pagesize(vma);
>>>> +    /* If we are forced to map at page granularity, force the 
>>>> pagesize here */
>>>> +    vma_pagesize = force_pte ? PAGE_SIZE : vma_kernel_pagesize(vma);
>>>> +
>>>>        /*
>>>>         * The stage2 has a minimum of 2 level table (For arm64 see
>>>>         * kvm_arm_setup_stage2()). Hence, we are guaranteed that we can
>>>> @@ -1701,11 +1703,10 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>         * As for PUD huge maps, we must make sure that we have at least
>>>>         * 3 levels, i.e, PMD is not folded.
>>>>         */
>>>> -    if ((vma_pagesize == PMD_SIZE ||
>>>> -         (vma_pagesize == PUD_SIZE && kvm_stage2_has_pmd(kvm))) &&
>>>> -        !force_pte) {
>>>> +    if (vma_pagesize == PMD_SIZE ||
>>>> +        (vma_pagesize == PUD_SIZE && kvm_stage2_has_pmd(kvm)))
>>>>            gfn = (fault_ipa & huge_page_mask(hstate_vma(vma))) >> 
>>>> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>> -    }
>>>> +
>>>>        up_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
>>>>        /* We need minimum second+third level pages */
>>
>> A nicer implementation and easier to understand, thanks!
>>
>>> That's pretty interesting, because this is almost what we already have
>>> in the NV code:
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/tree/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c?h=kvm-arm64/nv-wip-v5.0-rc7#n1752 
>>>
>>>
>>> (note that force_pte is gone in that branch).
>>
>> haha :-) sorry about that. I haven't looked into the NV code yet, so ...
>>
>> But I'm still wondering: should we fix this wrong mapping size problem
>> before NV is introduced? Since this problem has not much to do with NV,
>> and 5.0 has already been released with this problem (and 5.1 will
>> without fix ...).
> 
> Yes, we must fix it. I will soon send out a patch copying on it.
> Its just that I find some more issues around forcing the PTE
> mappings with PUD huge pages. I will send something out soon.

Sounds good!


zenghui



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	marc.zyngier@arm.com, zenghuiyu96@gmail.com
Cc: christoffer.dall@arm.com, punit.agrawal@arm.com,
	julien.thierry@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	james.morse@arm.com, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] KVM: arm64: Force a PTE mapping when logging is enabled
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 19:32:35 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2b60806d-77cd-98a2-e9b7-f2393f2592f7@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c3d64d23-991e-b199-9168-38f37d533afc@arm.com>



On 2019/3/5 19:13, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi Zenghui,
> 
> On 05/03/2019 11:09, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>> Hi Marc, Suzuki,
>>
>> On 2019/3/5 1:34, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Hi Zenghui, Suzuki,
>>>
>>> On 04/03/2019 17:13, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>> Hi Zenghui,
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 11:14:38PM +0800, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>>>>> I think there're still some problems in this patch... Details below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 11:39 AM Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea behind this is: we don't want to keep tracking of huge 
>>>>>> pages when
>>>>>> logging_active is true, which will result in performance 
>>>>>> degradation.  We
>>>>>> still need to set vma_pagesize to PAGE_SIZE, so that we can make 
>>>>>> use of it
>>>>>> to force a PTE mapping.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you're right. We are indeed ignoring the force_pte flag.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Atfer looking into https://patchwork.codeaurora.org/patch/647985/ 
>>>>>> , the
>>>>>> "vma_pagesize = PAGE_SIZE" logic was not intended to be deleted. 
>>>>>> As far
>>>>>> as I can tell, we used to have "hugetlb" to force the PTE mapping, 
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> we have "vma_pagesize" currently instead. We should set it 
>>>>>> properly for
>>>>>> performance reasons (e.g, in VM migration). Did I miss something 
>>>>>> important?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> index 30251e2..7d41b16 100644
>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> @@ -1705,6 +1705,13 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>>>                (vma_pagesize == PUD_SIZE && 
>>>>>> kvm_stage2_has_pmd(kvm))) &&
>>>>>>               !force_pte) {
>>>>>>                   gfn = (fault_ipa & 
>>>>>> huge_page_mask(hstate_vma(vma))) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>>> +       } else {
>>>>>> +               /*
>>>>>> +                * Fallback to PTE if it's not one of the stage2
>>>>>> +                * supported hugepage sizes or the corresponding 
>>>>>> level
>>>>>> +                * doesn't exist, or logging is enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, Instead of "logging is enabled", it should be "force_pte is 
>>>>> true",
>>>>> since "force_pte" will be true when:
>>>>>
>>>>>           1) fault_supports_stage2_pmd_mappings() return false; or
>>>>>           2) "logging is enabled" (e.g, in VM migration).
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, fallback some unsupported hugepage sizes (e.g, 64K hugepage 
>>>>> with
>>>>> 4K pages) to PTE is somewhat strange. And it will then _unexpectedly_
>>>>> reach transparent_hugepage_adjust(), though no real adjustment will 
>>>>> happen
>>>>> since commit fd2ef358282c ("KVM: arm/arm64: Ensure only THP is 
>>>>> candidate
>>>>> for adjustment"). Keeping "vma_pagesize" there as it is will be 
>>>>> better,
>>>>> right?
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'd just simplify the logic like:
>>>>
>>>> We could fix this right in the beginning. See patch below:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           } else if (force_pte) {
>>>>>                   vma_pagesize = PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>>           }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will send a V2 later and waiting for your comments :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> index 30251e2..529331e 100644
>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> @@ -1693,7 +1693,9 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>            return -EFAULT;
>>>>        }
>>>> -    vma_pagesize = vma_kernel_pagesize(vma);
>>>> +    /* If we are forced to map at page granularity, force the 
>>>> pagesize here */
>>>> +    vma_pagesize = force_pte ? PAGE_SIZE : vma_kernel_pagesize(vma);
>>>> +
>>>>        /*
>>>>         * The stage2 has a minimum of 2 level table (For arm64 see
>>>>         * kvm_arm_setup_stage2()). Hence, we are guaranteed that we can
>>>> @@ -1701,11 +1703,10 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>         * As for PUD huge maps, we must make sure that we have at least
>>>>         * 3 levels, i.e, PMD is not folded.
>>>>         */
>>>> -    if ((vma_pagesize == PMD_SIZE ||
>>>> -         (vma_pagesize == PUD_SIZE && kvm_stage2_has_pmd(kvm))) &&
>>>> -        !force_pte) {
>>>> +    if (vma_pagesize == PMD_SIZE ||
>>>> +        (vma_pagesize == PUD_SIZE && kvm_stage2_has_pmd(kvm)))
>>>>            gfn = (fault_ipa & huge_page_mask(hstate_vma(vma))) >> 
>>>> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>> -    }
>>>> +
>>>>        up_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
>>>>        /* We need minimum second+third level pages */
>>
>> A nicer implementation and easier to understand, thanks!
>>
>>> That's pretty interesting, because this is almost what we already have
>>> in the NV code:
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/tree/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c?h=kvm-arm64/nv-wip-v5.0-rc7#n1752 
>>>
>>>
>>> (note that force_pte is gone in that branch).
>>
>> haha :-) sorry about that. I haven't looked into the NV code yet, so ...
>>
>> But I'm still wondering: should we fix this wrong mapping size problem
>> before NV is introduced? Since this problem has not much to do with NV,
>> and 5.0 has already been released with this problem (and 5.1 will
>> without fix ...).
> 
> Yes, we must fix it. I will soon send out a patch copying on it.
> Its just that I find some more issues around forcing the PTE
> mappings with PUD huge pages. I will send something out soon.

Sounds good!


zenghui

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>, <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	<zenghuiyu96@gmail.com>
Cc: julien.thierry@arm.com, punit.agrawal@arm.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, christoffer.dall@arm.com,
	james.morse@arm.com, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] KVM: arm64: Force a PTE mapping when logging is enabled
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 19:32:35 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2b60806d-77cd-98a2-e9b7-f2393f2592f7@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c3d64d23-991e-b199-9168-38f37d533afc@arm.com>



On 2019/3/5 19:13, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi Zenghui,
> 
> On 05/03/2019 11:09, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>> Hi Marc, Suzuki,
>>
>> On 2019/3/5 1:34, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Hi Zenghui, Suzuki,
>>>
>>> On 04/03/2019 17:13, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>> Hi Zenghui,
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 11:14:38PM +0800, Zenghui Yu wrote:
>>>>> I think there're still some problems in this patch... Details below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 11:39 AM Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea behind this is: we don't want to keep tracking of huge 
>>>>>> pages when
>>>>>> logging_active is true, which will result in performance 
>>>>>> degradation.  We
>>>>>> still need to set vma_pagesize to PAGE_SIZE, so that we can make 
>>>>>> use of it
>>>>>> to force a PTE mapping.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you're right. We are indeed ignoring the force_pte flag.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Atfer looking into https://patchwork.codeaurora.org/patch/647985/ 
>>>>>> , the
>>>>>> "vma_pagesize = PAGE_SIZE" logic was not intended to be deleted. 
>>>>>> As far
>>>>>> as I can tell, we used to have "hugetlb" to force the PTE mapping, 
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> we have "vma_pagesize" currently instead. We should set it 
>>>>>> properly for
>>>>>> performance reasons (e.g, in VM migration). Did I miss something 
>>>>>> important?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> index 30251e2..7d41b16 100644
>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>>> @@ -1705,6 +1705,13 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>>>                (vma_pagesize == PUD_SIZE && 
>>>>>> kvm_stage2_has_pmd(kvm))) &&
>>>>>>               !force_pte) {
>>>>>>                   gfn = (fault_ipa & 
>>>>>> huge_page_mask(hstate_vma(vma))) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>>> +       } else {
>>>>>> +               /*
>>>>>> +                * Fallback to PTE if it's not one of the stage2
>>>>>> +                * supported hugepage sizes or the corresponding 
>>>>>> level
>>>>>> +                * doesn't exist, or logging is enabled.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, Instead of "logging is enabled", it should be "force_pte is 
>>>>> true",
>>>>> since "force_pte" will be true when:
>>>>>
>>>>>           1) fault_supports_stage2_pmd_mappings() return false; or
>>>>>           2) "logging is enabled" (e.g, in VM migration).
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, fallback some unsupported hugepage sizes (e.g, 64K hugepage 
>>>>> with
>>>>> 4K pages) to PTE is somewhat strange. And it will then _unexpectedly_
>>>>> reach transparent_hugepage_adjust(), though no real adjustment will 
>>>>> happen
>>>>> since commit fd2ef358282c ("KVM: arm/arm64: Ensure only THP is 
>>>>> candidate
>>>>> for adjustment"). Keeping "vma_pagesize" there as it is will be 
>>>>> better,
>>>>> right?
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'd just simplify the logic like:
>>>>
>>>> We could fix this right in the beginning. See patch below:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           } else if (force_pte) {
>>>>>                   vma_pagesize = PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>>           }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will send a V2 later and waiting for your comments :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> index 30251e2..529331e 100644
>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>> @@ -1693,7 +1693,9 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>            return -EFAULT;
>>>>        }
>>>> -    vma_pagesize = vma_kernel_pagesize(vma);
>>>> +    /* If we are forced to map at page granularity, force the 
>>>> pagesize here */
>>>> +    vma_pagesize = force_pte ? PAGE_SIZE : vma_kernel_pagesize(vma);
>>>> +
>>>>        /*
>>>>         * The stage2 has a minimum of 2 level table (For arm64 see
>>>>         * kvm_arm_setup_stage2()). Hence, we are guaranteed that we can
>>>> @@ -1701,11 +1703,10 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu 
>>>> *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>         * As for PUD huge maps, we must make sure that we have at least
>>>>         * 3 levels, i.e, PMD is not folded.
>>>>         */
>>>> -    if ((vma_pagesize == PMD_SIZE ||
>>>> -         (vma_pagesize == PUD_SIZE && kvm_stage2_has_pmd(kvm))) &&
>>>> -        !force_pte) {
>>>> +    if (vma_pagesize == PMD_SIZE ||
>>>> +        (vma_pagesize == PUD_SIZE && kvm_stage2_has_pmd(kvm)))
>>>>            gfn = (fault_ipa & huge_page_mask(hstate_vma(vma))) >> 
>>>> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>> -    }
>>>> +
>>>>        up_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
>>>>        /* We need minimum second+third level pages */
>>
>> A nicer implementation and easier to understand, thanks!
>>
>>> That's pretty interesting, because this is almost what we already have
>>> in the NV code:
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/tree/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c?h=kvm-arm64/nv-wip-v5.0-rc7#n1752 
>>>
>>>
>>> (note that force_pte is gone in that branch).
>>
>> haha :-) sorry about that. I haven't looked into the NV code yet, so ...
>>
>> But I'm still wondering: should we fix this wrong mapping size problem
>> before NV is introduced? Since this problem has not much to do with NV,
>> and 5.0 has already been released with this problem (and 5.1 will
>> without fix ...).
> 
> Yes, we must fix it. I will soon send out a patch copying on it.
> Its just that I find some more issues around forcing the PTE
> mappings with PUD huge pages. I will send something out soon.

Sounds good!


zenghui



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

  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-05 11:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-02  3:35 [RFC PATCH] KVM: arm64: Force a PTE mapping when logging is enabled Zenghui Yu
2019-03-02  3:35 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-03-02  3:35 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-03-03 15:14 ` Zenghui Yu
2019-03-03 15:14   ` Zenghui Yu
2019-03-03 15:14   ` Zenghui Yu
2019-03-04 17:13   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-03-04 17:13     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-03-04 17:13     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-03-04 17:34     ` Marc Zyngier
2019-03-04 17:34       ` Marc Zyngier
2019-03-04 17:34       ` Marc Zyngier
2019-03-05 11:09       ` Zenghui Yu
2019-03-05 11:09         ` Zenghui Yu
2019-03-05 11:09         ` Zenghui Yu
2019-03-05 11:13         ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-03-05 11:13           ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-03-05 11:32           ` Zenghui Yu [this message]
2019-03-05 11:32             ` Zenghui Yu
2019-03-05 11:32             ` Zenghui Yu
2019-03-05 11:51         ` Marc Zyngier
2019-03-05 11:51           ` Marc Zyngier

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=2b60806d-77cd-98a2-e9b7-f2393f2592f7@huawei.com \
    --to=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
    --cc=christoffer.dall@arm.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=julien.thierry@arm.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=punit.agrawal@arm.com \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com \
    --cc=zenghuiyu96@gmail.com \
    /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: link
Be 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.