Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <de1327c2-f751-ac28-8dd7-7dd40bf1eab3@bytedance.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 18:09:13 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [v2 3/6] KVM: arm64: Support pvlock preempted via shared
 structure
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
        yezengruan@huawei.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
        maz@kernel.org, steven.price@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        bagasdotme@gmail.com, fam.zheng@bytedance.com, liangma@liangbit.com
References: <20221104062105.4119003-1-usama.arif@bytedance.com>
 <20221104062105.4119003-4-usama.arif@bytedance.com> <8735au3ap2.fsf@stealth>
From:   Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <8735au3ap2.fsf@stealth>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 07/11/2022 18:02, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com> writes:
> 
>> Implement the service call for configuring a shared structure between a
>> VCPU and the hypervisor in which the hypervisor can tell whether the
>> VCPU is running or not.
>>
>> The preempted field is zero if the VCPU is not preempted.
>> Any other value means the VCPU has been preempted.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zengruan Ye <yezengruan@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst |  3 ++
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h         | 18 ++++++++++
>>   arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h         |  1 +
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/Makefile                   |  2 +-
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c                      |  8 +++++
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c               |  8 +++++
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/pvlock.c                   | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   tools/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h   |  1 +
>>   8 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>   create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/pvlock.c
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst
>> index 3e23084644ba..872a16226ace 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst
>> @@ -127,6 +127,9 @@ The pseudo-firmware bitmap register are as follows:
>>       Bit-1: KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_PTP:
>>         The bit represents the Precision Time Protocol KVM service.
>>   
>> +    Bit-2: KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_PV_LOCK:
>> +      The bit represents the Paravirtualized lock service.
>> +
>>   Errors:
>>   
>>       =======  =============================================================
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 45e2136322ba..18303b30b7e9 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -417,6 +417,11 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>>   		u64 last_steal;
>>   		gpa_t base;
>>   	} steal;
>> +
>> +	/* Guest PV lock state */
>> +	struct {
>> +		gpa_t base;
>> +	} pv;
> 
> Using "pv" for the structure isn't quite describing the usage well. It'd
> be better to call it "pv_lock" or "pvlock" at the least.
> 
Yes makes sense, will change in next patchset, Thanks.

> [...]
>