Re: [PATCH v2 02/17] xen/riscv: introduce sbi_remote_hfence_gvma_vmid()

[Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/18/25 5:20 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:

> On 10.06.2025 15:05, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > It instructs the remote harts to execute one or more HFENCE.GVMA instructions
> > by making an SBI call, covering the range of guest physical addresses between
> > start_addr and start_addr + size only for the given VMID.
> >
> > This function call is only valid for harts implementing hypervisor extension.
> >       
> We require H now, don't we? It's also odd to have this here, but not in patch 1.
>     
Yes, we required it. I will drop this part from the commit message and the comment
above declaration of sbi_remote_hfence_gvma_vmid().

> > --- a/xen/arch/riscv/sbi.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/sbi.c
> > @@ -267,6 +267,15 @@ int sbi_remote_hfence_gvma(const cpumask_t *cpu_mask, vaddr_t start,
> >                        cpu_mask, start, size, 0, 0);
> >  }
> >  
> > +int sbi_remote_hfence_gvma_vmid(const cpumask_t *cpu_mask, vaddr_t start,
> > +                           size_t size, unsigned long vmid)
> > +{
> > +    ASSERT(sbi_rfence);
> > +
> > +    return sbi_rfence(SBI_EXT_RFENCE_REMOTE_HFENCE_GVMA,
> > +                      cpu_mask, start, size, vmid, 0);
> > +}
> >       
> sbi_remote_hfence_gvma() may want implementing in terms of this new function,
> requiring the patches to be swapped. Provided (see comment there) that helper
> is actually needed.
>     
It makes sense.
But it seems like there is no need for sbi_remote_hfence_gvma() as we have VMID introduced.
~ Oleksii