From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Kautuk Consul <kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>,
        Fabiano Rosas <farosas@linux.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arch/powerpc/kvm: kvmppc_hv_entry: remove r4
 argument
In-Reply-To: <ZBFVAxAFsUJtuzEy@li-a450e7cc-27df-11b2-a85c-b5a9ac31e8ef.ibm.com>
References: <20230306123740.3648841-1-kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20230306123740.3648841-3-kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <875yb2oc0a.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
 <ZBFVAxAFsUJtuzEy@li-a450e7cc-27df-11b2-a85c-b5a9ac31e8ef.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:39:08 +1100
Message-ID: <87wn3hmkkj.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Kautuk Consul <kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> On 2023-03-15 15:48:53, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Kautuk Consul <kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> > kvmppc_hv_entry is called from only 2 locations within
>> > book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S. Both of those locations set r4
>> > as HSTATE_KVM_VCPU(r13) before calling kvmppc_hv_entry.
>> > So, shift the r4 load instruction to kvmppc_hv_entry and
>> > thus modify the calling convention of this function.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Kautuk Consul <kconsul@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> > ---
>> >  arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S | 9 ++++-----
>> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S
>> > index b81ba4ee0521..da9a15db12fe 100644
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rmhandlers.S
>> > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ _GLOBAL_TOC(kvmppc_hv_entry_trampoline)
>> >  	RFI_TO_KERNEL
>> >  
>> >  kvmppc_call_hv_entry:
>> > -	ld	r4, HSTATE_KVM_VCPU(r13)
>> > +	/* Enter guest. */
>> >  	bl	kvmppc_hv_entry
>> >  
>> >  	/* Back from guest - restore host state and return to caller */
>> > @@ -352,9 +352,7 @@ kvm_secondary_got_guest:
>> >  	mtspr	SPRN_LDBAR, r0
>> >  	isync
>> >  63:
>> > -	/* Order load of vcpu after load of vcore */
>> > -	lwsync
>> 
>> Where did this barrier go?
>> 
>> I don't see that it's covered by any existing barriers in
>> kvmppc_hv_entry, and you don't add it back anywhere. 
>
> My concept about this is that since now the call to kvmppc_hv_entry
> is first taken before the load to r4 shouldn't the pending load in the
> pipeline of the HSTATE_KVM_VCORE as per the earlier comment be ordered anyway
> before-hand ?

No.
 
> Or do you mean to say that pending loads may not be
> cleared/flushed across the "bl <funcname>" boundary ?

Right.

The "bl" imposes no ordering on loads before or after it.

In general nothing orders two independant loads, other than a barrier.

cheers