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:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        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: <20200421080905.GF11134@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200419203137.214111265@linutronix.de> <20200420092045.GC24518@infradead.org> <87sggyax05.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200421080905.GF11134@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:09:07 +0200
Message-ID: <87tv1durws.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 07:27:06PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:
>> > 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.
>> 
>> I'll have a look again.
>
> Regarding the SVM case, the only usage is for a TLB errata.  At a glance,
> svm_init_erratum_383() and is_erratum_383() don't use any KVM hooks, i.e. I
> don't see anything that would prevent moving those to .../kernel/cpu/amd.c.

Right, but that would trade one export vs. two SVM errata specific
exports. Not really a win.

Thanks,

        tglx