From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9DAC433B4 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 21:00:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F15261075 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 21:00:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3F15261075 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BDF4B4FE; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:00:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@redhat.com Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e966GOm6Mwtj; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE95B4B4D8; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165344B4D8 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:00:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SkvvO5JqBjIi for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF644B494 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:00:25 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1617224424; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2LQqUVLUZYdl8RcTGPBOfvhnoH130Hf3/RpFvvu9duY=; b=XatB7QejBZNsCIdTlnbGqNfhVWokTxeLOX9iNKt5V+JhNXup4AQ1fdSX1vVzrrHeIcUA60 cPTzpFdkfNCslWHuG7pvw2kagXS13Fjtbcu+mDF5ot8AHT/+QCKijTuwlLG7DQnbqgToJV SDCBaoBwyzZjeyCuw3LL8JrX0LknkyU= Received: from mail-ej1-f70.google.com (mail-ej1-f70.google.com [209.85.218.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-477-zgx7vI5-Pu2auIahrQwEgw-1; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:00:22 -0400 X-MC-Unique: zgx7vI5-Pu2auIahrQwEgw-1 Received: by mail-ej1-f70.google.com with SMTP id r26so1352346eja.22 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:00:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2LQqUVLUZYdl8RcTGPBOfvhnoH130Hf3/RpFvvu9duY=; b=DUtZ7uylv6bN4zweya87Jal+Cid5bt/iHSavHEThXJCXfwAYsBjQ7tv78hbKKw0RtO p2OplzymztqgRFE2dyj0PRHCTEpIDAOYe63LlqJRXN4HdBkqe1HtEZcn7Dx/5ttEJy2q ftJ0Kjne5hxF/tGRoc2S99rbZWedLybi0/E0YTkfA8PzI8qA7GlrV2UXUfF63S6GOGBz k/AlQcEjREqvDAHyGhlImh1Lwq7tFf2XvrnEa1Sf/8OArqQ5EwXK6Y5iiMVqFEu6nkt1 NcZBeEuVgvxTqdh2LN2WHR9w8k8Di410iV1rqXl3A6PKkvUNgom51h6pZtbRy+t79xtm o11w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531hp5dc9k1rM83k0mGb3YS0fjwvAIjqoZnHek7vaituu7KXDWPl mAzgrSyEL02vJJ/GJWQVO58BHCa26mzWcMefvnPaKUYVRPpvsRTK5zOohIgC9XJI8jGq+j21lUB 7kWZAwZm9Ci8YVNNsyGr1uxz7 X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d3ca:: with SMTP id o10mr6104413edr.374.1617224421716; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:00:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw50R87T4Vu7z/jVciLQACACQ+dsOT5/iwXfrDvSvIyaxglINHwXnv99OCNOBQhJmcFA6BI0w== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d3ca:: with SMTP id o10mr6104376edr.374.1617224421543; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:b07:6468:f312:c8dd:75d4:99ab:290a? ([2001:b07:6468:f312:c8dd:75d4:99ab:290a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x21sm2291820eds.53.2021.03.31.14.00.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation unless necessary To: Sean Christopherson References: <20210326021957.1424875-1-seanjc@google.com> <20210326021957.1424875-17-seanjc@google.com> <6e7dc7d0-f5dc-85d9-1c50-d23b761b5ff3@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <60357fd0-d412-fe47-8023-8107a60ade7e@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 23:00:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Cc: Wanpeng Li , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier , Joerg Roedel , Huacai Chen , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , Aleksandar Markovic , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Ben Gardon , Vitaly Kuznetsov , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Jim Mattson X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On 31/03/21 22:52, Sean Christopherson wrote: > 100% agree with introducing on_lock separately from the conditional locking. > > Not so sure about introducing conditional locking and then converting non-x86 > archs. I'd prefer to keep the conditional locking after arch conversion. > If something does go awry, it would be nice to be able to preciesly bisect to > the conditional locking. Ditto if it needs to be reverted because it breaks an > arch. Ok, that sounds good too. Paolo _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm