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=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, 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 5E684C433E0 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:34:06 +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 A341B204FD for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:34:06 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A341B204FD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass 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 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k3ipj-0000hg-JI; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 16:33:35 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k3ipi-0000hb-9U for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 16:33:34 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 09ca4436-44b7-4f21-86f9-16f62750f315 Received: from mx2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.15]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 09ca4436-44b7-4f21-86f9-16f62750f315; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 16:33:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A055DAC48; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:33:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V1 08/12] xen/arm: Invalidate qemu mapcache on XENMEM_decrease_reservation To: Oleksandr References: <1596478888-23030-1-git-send-email-olekstysh@gmail.com> <1596478888-23030-9-git-send-email-olekstysh@gmail.com> <21b7d8ed-f305-8abe-0e4e-174d72d087c8@suse.com> <04cfd6e4-1ed0-52c3-a3b0-d555d9dc632b@suse.com> <0ff0807f-c5d3-f63c-d54c-860648ef3a13@gmail.com> From: Jan Beulich Message-ID: <52549e1a-d29b-d2c5-8173-e44dbd67d04f@suse.com> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 18:33:33 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0ff0807f-c5d3-f63c-d54c-860648ef3a13@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Julien Grall , Wei Liu , Andrew Cooper , Ian Jackson , George Dunlap , Oleksandr Tyshchenko , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Volodymyr Babchuk Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On 06.08.2020 16:28, Oleksandr wrote: > > On 06.08.20 14:50, Jan Beulich wrote: > > Hi Jan > >>>> On 03.08.2020 20:21, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/common/memory.c >>>>> +++ b/xen/common/memory.c >>>>> @@ -1652,6 +1652,12 @@ long do_memory_op(unsigned long cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg) >>>>> break; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> + /* x86 already sets the flag in hvm_memory_op() */ >>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) && defined(CONFIG_IOREQ_SERVER) >>>>> + if ( op == XENMEM_decrease_reservation ) >>>>> + curr_d->arch.hvm.qemu_mapcache_invalidate = true; >>>>> +#endif >>>> Doesn't the comment already indicate a route towards an approach >>>> not requiring to alter common code? >>> Given that IOREQ is now moved under common/, I think it would make sense >>> to have this set in common code as well for all the architecture. >>> >>> IOW, I would suggest to drop the #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64. In addition, we >>> may want to introduce an helper to check if a domain is using ioreq. >> Of course, with the (part of the) conditional dropped and the struct >> field moved out of the arch sub-struct, this is fine to live here. > > ok. > > > I suspect this should *also* live in compat_memory_op(). Please confirm > whether my understanding correct. Doesn't compat_memory_op() simply call here, so will have the flag set as needed? Jan