Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
between commit:
4ce94eabac16 ("x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently")
from the tip tree and commit:
2b519b5797d4 ("x86/kvm: Don't bother __pv_cpu_mask when !CONFIG_SMP")
from the kvm tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
index 5d32fa477a62,224a7a1ed6c3..000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
@@@ -574,6 -574,49 +574,54 @@@ static void kvm_smp_send_call_func_ipi(
}
}
-static void kvm_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
++static void kvm_flush_tlb_multi(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
+ const struct flush_tlb_info *info)
+ {
+ u8 state;
+ int cpu;
+ struct kvm_steal_time *src;
+ struct cpumask *flushmask = this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(__pv_cpu_mask);
+
+ cpumask_copy(flushmask, cpumask);
+ /*
+ * We have to call flush only on online vCPUs. And
+ * queue flush_on_enter for pre-empted vCPUs
+ */
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, flushmask) {
++ /*
++ * The local vCPU is never preempted, so we do not explicitly
++ * skip check for local vCPU - it will never be cleared from
++ * flushmask.
++ */
+ src = &per_cpu(steal_time, cpu);
+ state = READ_ONCE(src->preempted);
+ if ((state & KVM_VCPU_PREEMPTED)) {
+ if (try_cmpxchg(&src->preempted, &state,
+ state | KVM_VCPU_FLUSH_TLB))
+ __cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, flushmask);
+ }
+ }
+
- native_flush_tlb_others(flushmask, info);
++ native_flush_tlb_multi(flushmask, info);
+ }
+
+ static __init int kvm_alloc_cpumask(void)
+ {
+ int cpu;
+
+ if (!kvm_para_available() || nopv)
+ return 0;
+
+ if (pv_tlb_flush_supported() || pv_ipi_supported())
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+ zalloc_cpumask_var_node(per_cpu_ptr(&__pv_cpu_mask, cpu),
+ GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(cpu));
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+ }
+ arch_initcall(kvm_alloc_cpumask);
+
static void __init kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
{
/*
@@@ -655,15 -668,9 +673,9 @@@ static void __init kvm_guest_init(void
if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME)) {
has_steal_clock = 1;
- pv_ops.time.steal_clock = kvm_steal_clock;
+ static_call_update(pv_steal_clock, kvm_steal_clock);
}
- if (pv_tlb_flush_supported()) {
- pv_ops.mmu.flush_tlb_multi = kvm_flush_tlb_multi;
- pv_ops.mmu.tlb_remove_table = tlb_remove_table;
- pr_info("KVM setup pv remote TLB flush\n");
- }
-
if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_EOI))
apic_set_eoi_write(kvm_guest_apic_eoi_write);
@@@ -673,6 -680,12 +685,12 @@@
}
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ if (pv_tlb_flush_supported()) {
- pv_ops.mmu.flush_tlb_others = kvm_flush_tlb_others;
++ pv_ops.mmu.flush_tlb_multi = kvm_flush_tlb_multi;
+ pv_ops.mmu.tlb_remove_table = tlb_remove_table;
+ pr_info("KVM setup pv remote TLB flush\n");
+ }
+
smp_ops.smp_prepare_boot_cpu = kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu;
if (pv_sched_yield_supported()) {
smp_ops.send_call_func_ipi = kvm_smp_send_call_func_ipi;
> On Apr 21, 2021, at 9:30 PM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 4ce94eabac16 ("x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> 2b519b5797d4 ("x86/kvm: Don't bother __pv_cpu_mask when !CONFIG_SMP")
>
> from the kvm tree.
Thank you and sorry for that.
> static void __init kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
> {
> /*
> @@@ -655,15 -668,9 +673,9 @@@ static void __init kvm_guest_init(void
>
> if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME)) {
> has_steal_clock = 1;
> - pv_ops.time.steal_clock = kvm_steal_clock;
> + static_call_update(pv_steal_clock, kvm_steal_clock);
I do not understand how this line ended in the merge fix though.
Not that it is correct or wrong, but it is not part of either of
these 2 patches AFAIK.
Hi Nadav,
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 04:45:38 +0000 Nadav Amit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > static void __init kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
> > {
> > /*
> > @@@ -655,15 -668,9 +673,9 @@@ static void __init kvm_guest_init(void
> >
> > if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME)) {
> > has_steal_clock = 1;
> > - pv_ops.time.steal_clock = kvm_steal_clock;
> > + static_call_update(pv_steal_clock, kvm_steal_clock);
>
> I do not understand how this line ended in the merge fix though.
>
> Not that it is correct or wrong, but it is not part of either of
> these 2 patches AFAIK.
It came from another patch that did not cause a conflict but ended up
in the diff output.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On 22/04/21 06:45, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> On Apr 21, 2021, at 9:30 PM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 4ce94eabac16 ("x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently")
>>
>> from the tip tree and commit:
>>
>> 2b519b5797d4 ("x86/kvm: Don't bother __pv_cpu_mask when !CONFIG_SMP")
>>
>> from the kvm tree.
>
> Thank you and sorry for that.
No problem, this is a reasonable conflict to have.
Paolo
>> static void __init kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
>> {
>> /*
>> @@@ -655,15 -668,9 +673,9 @@@ static void __init kvm_guest_init(void
>>
>> if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME)) {
>> has_steal_clock = 1;
>> - pv_ops.time.steal_clock = kvm_steal_clock;
>> + static_call_update(pv_steal_clock, kvm_steal_clock);
>
> I do not understand how this line ended in the merge fix though.
>
> Not that it is correct or wrong, but it is not part of either of
> these 2 patches AFAIK.
>