Messages in this thread | | | From | Vitaly Kuznetsov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] KVM: x86: hyperv: simplistic HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_{LIST,SPACE} implementation | Date | Sun, 13 May 2018 10:47:12 +0200 |
| |
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com> writes:
> 2018-04-16 13:08+0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov: ... > >> + /* >> + * vcpu->arch.cr3 may not be up-to-date for running vCPUs so we >> + * can't analyze it here, flush TLB regardless of the specified >> + * address space. >> + */ >> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH, vcpu); >> + >> + /* >> + * It is possible that vCPU will migrate and we will kick wrong >> + * CPU but vCPU's TLB will anyway be flushed upon migration as >> + * we already made KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH request. >> + */ >> + cpu = vcpu->cpu; >> + if (cpu != -1 && cpu != me && cpu_online(cpu) && >> + kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick(vcpu)) >> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &hv_current->tlb_lush); >> + } >> + >> + if (!cpumask_empty(&hv_current->tlb_lush)) >> + smp_call_function_many(&hv_current->tlb_lush, ack_flush, >> + NULL, true); > > Hm, quite a lot of code duplication with EX hypercall and also > kvm_make_all_cpus_request ... I'm thinking about making something like > > kvm_make_some_cpus_request(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req, > bool (*predicate)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)) > > or to implement a vp_index -> vcpu mapping and using > > kvm_vcpu_request_mask(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req, long *vcpu_bitmap) > > The latter would probably simplify logic of the EX hypercall.
We really want to avoid memory allocation for cpumask on this path and that's what kvm_make_all_cpus_request() currently does (when CPUMASK_OFFSTACK). vcpu bitmap is probably OK as KVM_MAX_VCPUS is much lower.
Making cpumask allocation avoidable leads us to the following API:
bool kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req, long *vcpu_bitmap, cpumask_var_t tmp);
or, if we want to prettify this a little bit, we may end up with the following pair:
bool kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req, long *vcpu_bitmap);
bool __kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req, long *vcpu_bitmap, cpumask_var_t tmp);
and from hyperv code we'll use the later. With this, no code duplication is required.
Does this look acceptable?
-- Vitaly
| |