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: <ba387464-59d5-0639-1d05-84bb7e764231@hisilicon.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 14:04:34 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.0.2
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From:   wangwudi <wangwudi@hisilicon.com>
Subject: [Question about gic vmovp cmd] Consider adding VINVALL after VMOVP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Marc,

During vpe migration, VMOVP needs to be executed.
If the vpe is migrated for the first time, especially before it is scheduled for the first time, there may be some unusual hanppens over kexec.
We might consider adding a VINVALL cmd after VMOVP to increase robustness.

@@ -1327,6 +1327,7 @@ static void its_send_vmovp(struct its_vpe *vpe)

                desc.its_vmovp_cmd.col = &its->collections[col_id];
                its_send_single_vcommand(its, its_build_vmovp_cmd, &desc);
+               its_send_vinvall(its, vpe);
        }

Do you think it's all right?

Thanks,
Wudi