From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org,
nadav.amit@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/8] x86/apic: Introduce Remote Action Request Operations
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:09:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aF1w1RLgA9w7tRUg@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mqeuxn4in7pscni5odii2qvzoils5ce3jdzvmp45w3bg462buj@4elenf2mxaro>
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 04:03:56PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
> >
> > RAR TLB flushing is started by sending a command to the APIC.
> > This patch adds Remote Action Request commands.
> >
> > Because RAR_VECTOR is hardcoded at 0xe0, POSTED_MSI_NOTIFICATION_VECTOR
> > has to be lowered to 0xdf, reducing the number of available vectors by
> > 13.
> >
> > [riel: refactor after 6 years of changes, lower POSTED_MSI_NOTIFICATION_VECTOR]
>
> But why? Because it is used as FIRST_SYSTEM_VECTOR?
The Posted MSI Notifications vector should be the lowest of the system vectors
so that device IRQs are NOT prioritized over "real" system vectors.
> > Signed-off-by: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/apicdef.h | 1 +
> > arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h | 7 ++++++-
> > arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h | 1 +
> > arch/x86/kernel/apic/ipi.c | 5 +++++
> > arch/x86/kernel/apic/local.h | 3 +++
> > 5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/apicdef.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/apicdef.h
> > index 094106b6a538..b152d45af91a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/apicdef.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/apicdef.h
> > @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@
> > #define APIC_DM_LOWEST 0x00100
> > #define APIC_DM_SMI 0x00200
> > #define APIC_DM_REMRD 0x00300
> > +#define APIC_DM_RAR 0x00300
>
> Hm. Do we conflict with APIC_DM_REMRD here?
Yes and no. Yes, it literally conflicts, but it's easy enough to define the behavior
of APIC_DM_{REMRD,RAR} based on feature support. E.g. KVM is likely going to add
support for Remote Read, which would conflict with KVM's bastardization of
APIC_DM_REMRD for PV kicks. But as Paolo pointed out[*], KVM's PV unhalt/kick
can simply be gated on KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT. Any code that cares should be able
to do the same thing for RAR. E.g. KVM's code could end up being something like:
case APIC_DM_REMRD:
if (guest_pv_has(vcpu, KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT)) {
result = 1;
vcpu->arch.pv.pv_unhalted = 1;
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
} else if (guest_has_rar(vcpu)) {
<magic!>
} else {
<emulate legacy Remote Read>;
}
break;
For the kernel itself, there's nothing to do, because Linux doesn't use Remote Read.
[*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CABgObfadZZ5sXYB0xR5OcLDw_eVUmXTOTFSWkVpkgiCJmNnFRQ@mail.gmail.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-26 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-19 20:03 [RFC PATCH v4 0/8] Intel RAR TLB invalidation Rik van Riel
2025-06-19 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/8] x86/mm: Introduce Remote Action Request MSRs Rik van Riel
2025-06-19 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/8] x86/mm: enable BROADCAST_TLB_FLUSH on Intel, too Rik van Riel
2025-06-26 13:08 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2025-06-19 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v4 3/8] x86/mm: Introduce X86_FEATURE_RAR Rik van Riel
2025-06-19 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v4 4/8] x86/apic: Introduce Remote Action Request Operations Rik van Riel
2025-06-26 13:20 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2025-06-26 16:09 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2025-06-19 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v4 5/8] x86/mm: Introduce Remote Action Request Rik van Riel
2025-06-19 23:01 ` Nadav Amit
2025-06-20 1:10 ` Rik van Riel
2025-06-20 15:27 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-06-20 21:24 ` Nadav Amit
2025-06-23 10:50 ` David Laight
2025-06-26 15:41 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2025-06-26 15:54 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2025-06-19 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v4 6/8] x86/mm: use RAR for kernel TLB flushes Rik van Riel
2025-06-27 13:27 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2025-06-29 1:30 ` Rik van Riel
2025-06-19 20:03 ` [RFC PATCH v4 7/8] x86/mm: userspace & pageout flushing using Intel RAR Rik van Riel
2025-06-19 20:04 ` [RFC PATCH v4 8/8] x86/tlb: flush the local TLB twice (DEBUG) Rik van Riel
2025-06-26 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/8] Intel RAR TLB invalidation Dave Jiang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aF1w1RLgA9w7tRUg@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yu-cheng.yu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®