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: <be258af9-a329-6f03-fcf9-9dafad42c97f@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2023 07:31:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 18/20] x86: Handle TDX erratum to reset TDX private
 memory during kexec() and reboot
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "david@redhat.com" <david@redhat.com>,
        "bagasdotme@gmail.com" <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
        "ak@linux.intel.com" <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@google.com>,
        "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@intel.com>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@google.com>,
        "imammedo@redhat.com" <imammedo@redhat.com>,
        "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@intel.com>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
References: <cover.1685887183.git.kai.huang@intel.com>
 <5aa7506d4fedbf625e3fe8ceeb88af3be1ce97ea.1685887183.git.kai.huang@intel.com>
 <20230609132301.uvvp27yr5kpenl6f@box.shutemov.name>
 <58f34b4b81b6d6b37d3386dec0f073e6eb7a97ff.camel@intel.com>
 <20230612075830.jbrdd6ysz4qq7wdf@box.shutemov.name>
 <4c7effc3abe71aa1cbee41f3bd46b97aed40be26.camel@intel.com>
 <48d5a29a-878c-665d-6ac2-6f0563bf6f3c@intel.com>
 <5782c8c2bb3e76a802e4a81c553a21edbaee7c47.camel@intel.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <5782c8c2bb3e76a802e4a81c553a21edbaee7c47.camel@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/19/23 04:43, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 06:47 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 6/12/23 03:27, Huang, Kai wrote:
>>> So I think a __mb() after setting tdmr->pamt_4k_base should be good enough, as
>>> it guarantees when setting to any pamt_*_size happens, the valid pamt_4k_base
>>> will be seen by other cpus.
>>>
>>> Does it make sense?
>> Just use a normal old atomic_t or set_bit()/test_bit().  They have
>> built-in memory barriers are are less likely to get botched.
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Using atomic_set() requires changing tdmr->pamt_4k_base to atomic_t, which is a
> little bit silly or overkill IMHO.  Looking at the code, it seems
> arch_atomic_set() simply uses __WRITE_ONCE():

How about _adding_ a variable that protects tdmr->pamt_4k_base?
Wouldn't that be more straightforward than mucking around with existing
types?