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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230722022251.3446223-1-rananta@google.com> <20230722022251.3446223-3-rananta@google.com>
 <87tttpr6qy.wl-maz@kernel.org> <ZMgsjx8dwKd4xBGe@google.com>
 <877cqdqw12.wl-maz@kernel.org> <CAJHc60xAUVt5fbhEkOqeC-VF8SWVOt3si=1yxVVAUW=+Hu_wNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHc60zN-dc2E-fS7fuXgkrfGD9bqW6tMy2GRZxbHOeZv0ZOBw@mail.gmail.com> <ZNJaPxTtPRCv0HOl@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZNJaPxTtPRCv0HOl@google.com>
From:   Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:19:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHc60yiGnVc=ysdOaNemWaDpTBSk02mRLenK3sN2XtN_Cp98g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/12] KVM: arm64: Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 8:07=E2=80=AFAM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.c=
om> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28=E2=80=AFPM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
> > <rananta@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure, I'll change it to kvm_arch_flush_vm_tlbs() in v8.
> > >
> > While working on the renaming, I realized that since this function is
> > called from kvm_main.c's kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(). Do we want to rename
> > this and the other kvm_flush_*() functions that the series introduces
> > to match their kvm_arch_flush_*() counterparts?
>
> Hmm, if we're going to rename one arch hook, then yes, I think it makes s=
ense to
> rename all the common APIs and arch hooks to match.
>
> However, x86 is rife with the "remote_tlbs" nomenclature, and renaming th=
e common
> APIs will just push the inconsistencies into x86.  While I 100% agree tha=
t the
> current naming is flawed, I am not willing to end up with x86 being parti=
ally
> converted.
>
> I think I'm ok renaming all of x86's many hooks?  But I'd definitely want=
 input
> from more x86 folks, and the size and scope of this series would explode.=
  Unless
> Marc objects and/or has a better idea, the least awful option is probably=
 to ignore
> the poor "remote_tlbs" naming and tackle it in a separate series.
>
Sure, I think it's better to do it in a separate series as well. I'm
happy to carry out the task after this one gets merged. But, let's
wait for Marc and others' opinion on the matter.

Thank you.
Raghavendra
> Sorry for not noticiing this earlier, I didn't realize just how much x86 =
uses
> remote_tlbs.
>
> > (spiraling more into this, we also have the 'remote_tlb_flush_requests'=
 and
> > 'remote_tlb_flush' stats)
>
> Regardless of what we decide for the APIs, definitely leave the stats alo=
ne.  The
> names are ABI.  We could preserve the names and changes the struct fields=
, but that
> would be a net negative IMO.