[PATCH v7 02/12] KVM: arm64: Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()

[Raghavendra Rao Ananta]

Sure, I'll change it to kvm_arch_flush_vm_tlbs() in v8.

Thanks,
Raghavendra

On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:55 AM Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 22:50:07 +0100,
> Sean Christopherson <seanjc at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 03:22:41 +0100,
> > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta at google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stop depending on CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_TLB_FLUSH_ALL and opt to
> > > > standardize on kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() since it avoids
> > > > duplicating the generic TLB stats across architectures that implement
> > > > their own remote TLB flush.
> > > >
> > > > This adds an extra function call to the ARM64 kvm_flush_remote_tlbs()
> > > > path, but that is a small cost in comparison to flushing remote TLBs.
> > >
> > > Well, there is no such thing as a "remote TLB" anyway. We either have
> > > a non-shareable or inner-shareable invalidation. The notion of remote
> > > would imply that we track who potentially has a TLB, which we
> > > obviously don't.
> >
> > Maybe kvm_arch_flush_vm_tlbs()?  The "remote" part is misleading even on x86 when
> > running on Hyper-V, as the flush may be done via a single hypercall and by kicking
> > "remote" vCPUs.
>
> Yup, this would be much better.
>
> Thanks,
>
>         M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.