Re: [PATCH] x86/flushtlb: remove flush_area check on system state

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 05:13:43PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 23.05.2022 16:37, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49:22AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 16.05.2022 16:31, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/flushtlb.h
> >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/flushtlb.h
> >>> @@ -146,7 +146,8 @@ void flush_area_mask(const cpumask_t *, const void 
> >>> *va, unsigned int flags);
> >>>  #define flush_mask(mask, flags) flush_area_mask(mask, NULL, flags)
> >>>  
> >>>  /* Flush all CPUs' TLBs/caches */
> >>> -#define flush_area_all(va, flags) flush_area_mask(&cpu_online_map, va, 
> >>> flags)
> >>> +#define flush_area(va, flags) \
> >>> +    flush_area_mask(&cpu_online_map, (const void *)(va), flags)
> >>
> >> I have to admit that I would prefer if we kept the "_all" name suffix,
> >> to continue to clearly express the scope of the flush. I'm also not
> >> really happy to see the cast being added globally now.
> > 
> > But there where no direct callers of flush_area_all(), so the name was
> > just relevant for it's use in flush_area().  With that now gone I
> > don't see a need for a flush_area_all(), as flush_area_mask() is more
> > appropriate.
> 
> And flush_area_all() is shorthand for flush_area_mask(&cpu_online_map, ...).
> That's more clearly distinguished from flush_area_local() than simply
> flush_area(); the latter was okay-ish with its mm.c-only exposure, but imo
> isn't anymore when put in a header.

OK, so you would prefer to replace callers to use flush_area_all() and
drop flush_area() altogether.  I can do that.

> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/smp.c
> >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/smp.c
> >>> @@ -262,7 +262,8 @@ void flush_area_mask(const cpumask_t *mask, const 
> >>> void *va, unsigned int flags)
> >>>  {
> >>>      unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> >>>  
> >>> -    ASSERT(local_irq_is_enabled());
> >>> +    /* Local flushes can be performed with interrupts disabled. */
> >>> +    ASSERT(local_irq_is_enabled() || cpumask_equal(mask, 
> >>> cpumask_of(cpu)));
> >>
> >> Further down we use cpumask_subset(mask, cpumask_of(cpu)),
> >> apparently to also cover the case where mask is empty. I think
> >> you want to do so here as well.
> > 
> > Hm, yes.  I guess that's cheaper than adding an extra:
> > 
> > if ( cpumask_empty() )
> >     return;
> > 
> > check at the start of the function.
> > 
> >>>      if ( (flags & ~(FLUSH_VCPU_STATE | FLUSH_ORDER_MASK)) &&
> >>>           cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mask) )
> >>
> >> I suppose we want a further precaution here: Despite the
> >> !cpumask_subset(mask, cpumask_of(cpu)) below I think we want to
> >> extend what c64bf2d2a625 ("x86: make CPU state flush requests
> >> explicit") and later changes (isolating uses of FLUSH_VCPU_STATE
> >> from other FLUSH_*) did and exclude the use of FLUSH_VCPU_STATE
> >> for the local CPU altogether.
> > 
> > If we really want to exclude the use of FLUSH_VCPU_STATE for the local
> > CPU, we might wish to add this as a separate ASSERT, so that such
> > checking doesn't depend on !local_irq_is_enabled():
> > 
> > ASSERT(local_irq_is_enabled() || cpumask_subset(mask, cpumask_of(cpu));
> > ASSERT(!cpumask_subset(mask, cpumask_of(cpu)) || !(flags & 
> > FLUSH_VCPU_STATE));
> > 
> > 
> >> That's because if such somehow made
> >> it into the conditional below here, it would still involve an IPI.
> > 
> > Sorry, I'm confused by this: if the mask is empty there should be no
> > IPI involved at all?  And we shouldn't even get into the second
> > conditional on the function.
> 
> Should perhaps have made more explicit that "somehow" means a hypothetical
> way, perhaps even as a result of some further breakage somewhere.

Oh, OK, then I wasn't so confused after all :).  Given your lack of
comments I assume you are fine with the addition of a separate ASSERT
to cover the usage of FLUSH_VCPU_STATE.

Thanks, Roger.