Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171130151715.GB1399@flask>
References: <1512021674-9880-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
 <1512021674-9880-3-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com> <20171130151715.GB1399@flask>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2017 08:55:59 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+CwXvPNs-RNiFxMwPMcVFxDmCemiA1q1+XM7B+mDazPXTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/4] KVM: X86: Add Paravirt TLB Shootdown
To:     =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2017-11-30 23:17 GMT+08:00 Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99 <rkrcmar@redhat.com>=
:
> 2017-11-29 22:01-0800, Wanpeng Li:
>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>> @@ -498,6 +498,34 @@ static void __init kvm_apf_trap_init(void)
>>       update_intr_gate(X86_TRAP_PF, async_page_fault);
>>  }
>>
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, __pv_tlb_mask);
>> +
>> +static void kvm_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
>> +                     const struct flush_tlb_info *info)
>> +{
>> +     u8 state;
>> +     int cpu;
>> +     struct kvm_steal_time *src;
>> +     struct cpumask *flushmask =3D this_cpu_cpumask_var_ptr(__pv_tlb_ma=
sk);
>> +
>> +     cpumask_copy(flushmask, cpumask);
>
> Is it impossible to call this function before the allocation?
>
> I was guessing that early_initcall might allow us to avoid a (static)
> condition as there is no point in calling when there are no others, but
> expected the worst ...

kernel_init()
  -> kernel_init_freeable()
        -> do_basic_setup()
            -> do_initcalls()
  -> async_synchronize_full()  =3D> finish all async __init code
  -> try_to_run_init_process()

All the async __init codes can guarantee to be completed before init
task is created, so I think arch_initcall() is fine.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li

From 1585504670660687023@xxx Thu Nov 30 15:18:02 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1585469692856919567
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread