On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 12:56:51PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 24/06/2019 12:43, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:37:48AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.d...@arm.com>
> >>
> >> Introduce the feature bit and a primitive that checks if the feature is
> >> set behind a static key check based on the cpus_have_const_cap check.
> >>
> >> Checking nested_virt_in_use() on systems without nested virt enabled
> >> should have neglgible overhead.
> >>
> >> We don't yet allow userspace to actually set this feature.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.d...@arm.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
> >> ---
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> >> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..8a3d121a0b42
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> >> +#ifndef __ARM64_KVM_NESTED_H
> >> +#define __ARM64_KVM_NESTED_H
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> >> +
> >> +static inline bool nested_virt_in_use(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +{
> >> + return cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_NESTED_VIRT) &&
> >> + test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_NESTED_VIRT, vcpu->arch.features);
> >> +}
> >
> > Also, is it worth having a vcpu->arch.flags flag for this, similarly to
> > SVE and ptrauth?
>
> What would we expose through this flag?
Nothing new, put possibly more efficient to access.
AFAIK, test_bit() always results in an explicit load, whereas
vcpu->arch.flags is just a variable, which we already access on some hot
paths. So the compiler can read it once and cache it, with a bit of
luck.
For flags that are fixed after vcpu init, or flags that are only read/
written by the vcpu thread itself, this should work fine.
Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
