Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/15] x86/tlb: Unexport per-CPU tlbstate
In-Reply-To: <913b9a53-1df4-e371-a3d8-867d1242c341@oracle.com>
References: <20200419203137.214111265@linutronix.de> <20200420092045.GC24518@infradead.org> <913b9a53-1df4-e371-a3d8-867d1242c341@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:08:49 +0200
Message-ID: <87368xx6lq.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> writes:
> On 4/20/20 11:20 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Just looking over some exports at the end of the series (and thus
>> ignoring bisection issues):
>> 
>>   - Is there any good reason to keep __flush_tlb_all inline vs moving it
>>     out of line and kill the flush_tlb_local and flush_tlb_global exports.
>>     Also there is just a single modular users in SVM, I wonder if there is
>>     any way to get rid of that one as well.
>> 
>> Also I think cpu_tlbstate itself could be marked static in tlb.c with
>> a few more changes, I wonder if would be worth it?
>> 
> For Address Space Isolation (ASI), I was planning on storing the ASI session
> into cpu_tlbstate (https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/2/26/699) as the ASI session
> then provides the TLB flushing information based on the ASI used. In that case,
> I would need cpu_tlbstate to be non-static. Otherwise I can have my own percpu
> asi_session structures, but using cpu_tlbstate seemed more appropriate to me.
> This is opened for discussion; for now, I am waiting for more changes that tglx
> is making, before rebasing ASI.

Even in that case we could restrict the availability to arch/x86/mm/
which would still make it available for ASI.

Thanks,

        tglx