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: <30e45ef3-309a-63de-e085-be1645c1be79@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:26:09 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 02/14] KVM: Declare kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
 globally
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>,
        Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Cc:     Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.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>,
        Fuad Tabba <tabba@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
References: <20230808231330.3855936-1-rananta@google.com>
 <20230808231330.3855936-3-rananta@google.com>
 <c33b0518-6e64-7acf-efa8-f404fce1ccac@redhat.com>
 <CAJHc60yCJANBQOizaoSPhEJH9e8a9C6n68x4qdVkOhVZiiWqkw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHc60yCJANBQOizaoSPhEJH9e8a9C6n68x4qdVkOhVZiiWqkw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 8/10/23 00:38, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> Hi Gavin,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:00 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/9/23 09:13, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
>>> There's no reason for the architectures to declare
>>> kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() in their own headers. Hence to
>>> avoid this duplication, make the declaration global, leaving
>>> the architectures to define only __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS
>>> as needed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 -
>>>    include/linux/kvm_host.h         | 2 ++
>>>    2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> index 9b0ad8f3bf327..54a85f1d4f2c8 100644
>>> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> @@ -897,6 +897,5 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
>>>    static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
>>>
>>>    #define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_FLUSH_REMOTE_TLBS
>>> -int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm);
>>>
>>>    #endif /* __MIPS_KVM_HOST_H__ */
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>>> index e3f968b38ae97..ade5d4500c2ce 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
>>> @@ -1484,6 +1484,8 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>    {
>>>        return -ENOTSUPP;
>>>    }
>>> +#else
>>> +int kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs(struct kvm *kvm);
>>>    #endif
>>>
>>>    #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_NONCOHERENT_DMA
>>
>> Is the declaration inconsistent to that in arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h?
>> In order to keep them consistent, I guess we need move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
>> from x86's header file to arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c and 'inline' needs to be dropped.
>>
> Unsure of the original intentions, I didn't want to disturb any
> existing arrangements. If more people agree to this refactoring, I'm
> happy to move.

This is amazing to me. This change can be compiled without any error 
even if the declaration inconsistent between the kvm_host.h and x86's 
header file.

I'm curious which option make it possible?

Thanks,
Shaoqin

> 
> Thank you.
> Raghavendra
>> Thanks,
>> Gavin
>>
> 

-- 
Shaoqin