From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f200.google.com (mail-pg1-f200.google.com [209.85.215.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82CFC4BB804 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2026 14:45:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.200 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788446750; cv=none; b=F3DB87qEg5rPQoCOQ83WI2ph7LgplAFosd/sfJjKPcLqtAZ/L1PcsIYGsO63y9Uv+BY1UzpTRXUT/oUYXwHRTRHWN/DK6jOw/F8p32G6vz2V8wRampMwNqkVcKMi0dwsz32kEpRnstS2M/v1HIRWz4oxaxJvTYPx8pRxKBvPBlA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788446750; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7IMGxa89GNRXnfWZ4hVhNNtEtma9m9jMafZL11hbH8k=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=tvzo1lDt39A553A3WryDx2olLJ7BKh5bEY9kQqvCMPp/yrftRxQ//ZSJ/Ahw1B/ocRH0DMqpOddmQQZkwG/XYcIlumf9Ns9Yej3Df4mh+ot5aiQ0l1H9mLdPCrNVay+E/bTTWuH6B+qvffsrLmHob/8lmtoMDm+1mLrzPNCrYtU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=UBQsF550; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.200 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="UBQsF550" Received: by mail-pg1-f200.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-cb11535e6a1so4620a12.0 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2026 07:45:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20251104; t=1788446748; x=1789051548; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-type:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :in-reply-to:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=CzI1smX7/IMyEGD/fNZX1tdlHe3Ey7XN1U8MbWwGg2c=; b=UBQsF550/VYvojmeegZZxAHkXeGZQHbLc02y5paQ5MrkPBRPvxy2J+Y9OzoBaJUIE2 WqMpbRNXZ3P75m8smBcM9x1Ezc/FBCi4ZT1moIQnrrKawaZ7QDlFYH/rcvwcXFkfwsoT WhvffFDRCy/cvxXOGlbVG4pHyTPuLeGNy2kaZsDzQhr4jKZN22LIqrqkIlJE8czRUVdo U0JbLjLKfC14Rm21yPe7jUDV0NrkDhx8j7y1mwy2Jclm3FkUtnp/a7u7TlqJBkfUmqto kk89AO9jV1Uj7v+WW3bzOV1D+YS1jTFsa26FCUl9DvnfASmktj6HF7vpTT9vs//ZCavQ oEBw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1788446748; x=1789051548; h=content-type:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :in-reply-to:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=CzI1smX7/IMyEGD/fNZX1tdlHe3Ey7XN1U8MbWwGg2c=; b=Dt0psj6R1NV9rqiWh1U1XcMD42oBNeZiigxqWgM2qwBiAXgEYNhl0vlaF8yL69eYZh kdQWcJjzWwMe1CaA2K/nSY3if9/pouFzkAToJmdRgsto6nGoEnGAAV1RaQ9dTSdnXuOu r1PU/W3ofi+aJHl40F4jidR8D4LabgCZZC06JPtdJBXeL44A+6mMDE72OA9OBbsAe+eC N64nCOw6h3fwaWKpQwKZ2J9eFHvBv6jlxflo+V4EFG0nAK9Pem19DMXtRLHlej6XKobF c3A1eaVesk5V//KUZHUhAWZJhU9AD19VpOJyHYKaRiHpCSYojy0iKYcXi7gxXl6IRnSk +z6g== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBzza4Wc8+wN9orQxrjdubrn9zcNmZPV9+Gl7nbSdzgfmPIWTyrwZbci8gDtuONFcXItT0wF2Oa3SPcYLAQ=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++mFNkzYoT5L0MI2jxvZqfBxu7LcaCceh6YvMIF3dnw9v1UMKjtu 2NJhvJ/6jZUxJMcgBSWYWu08zYNyu4qcP5i6xzPpWFvImPqUp+nsUZH0g0drf4w+gjWOmbYCPFC FbX3Auw== X-Received: from pgcv12.prod.google.com ([2002:a05:6a02:530c:b0:cc1:57f5:f8fc]) (user=seanjc job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a05:6a00:4408:b0:857:4dea:e2fe with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-85ed8ed8414mr20185879b3a.13.1788446747432; Thu, 03 Sep 2026 07:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 07:45:46 -0700 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20260831144802.834315-1-seiden@linux.ibm.com> <20260831144802.834315-3-seiden@linux.ibm.com> <20260902075028.231001-D-seiden@linux.ibm.com> <20260903114241.33034-C-seiden@linux.ibm.com> Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/23] KVM: Make device name configurable From: Sean Christopherson To: Steffen Eiden Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Gordeev , Andreas Grapentin , Arnd Bergmann , Catalin Marinas , Christian Borntraeger , Claudio Imbrenda , David Hildenbrand , Friedrich Welter , Fuad Tabba , Gautam Gala , Hariharan Mari , Heiko Carstens , Hendrik Brueckner , Ilya Leoshkevich , Janosch Frank , Joey Gouly , Marc Zyngier , Nico Boehr , Nina Schoetterl-Glausch , Oliver Upton , Paolo Bonzini , Suzuki K Poulose , Sven Schnelle , Ulrich Weigand , Vasily Gorbik , Will Deacon , Zenghui Yu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thu, Sep 03, 2026, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2026, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2026, Steffen Eiden wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 09:14:21AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > And taking things a few steps further, we can solve the MMIO issue in a more > > > > elegant way, and eliminate the runtime string building in this patch (after looking > > > > more closely, that code needs to be jettisoned no matter what, there's simply no > > > > reason to specify the names at runtime since they're separate compilation units). > > > > > > > > Rather than splatter #defines throughout header files, deal with the bulk of the > > > > pain in Makefile.kvm. By feeding conditionals into Makefile.kvm, the s390+arm64 > > > > build can easily omit coalesced_mmio.o and async_pf.o, define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_MMIO > > > > programatically without having to change other architectures, and solve the naming > > > > stuff. > > > > > > Yes, this is a great idea. Thank you. I second you, this looks more clean > > > and stable than the stuff we came up with :) > > > > Looking more at arch/s390/kvm/Kconfig and virt/kvm/Kconfig, we might need/want to > > to build out infrastructure to handle this sort of thing in a more generic fashion? > > > > Which probably isn't that much infrastructure? It's more just changing how arch > > code communicates with common KVM? I.e. instead of providing boolean configs in > > virt/kvm/Kconfig, formalize communicating HAVE-type macros through the Makefile. > > That might even be a net positive in the long run, as it will make it easier to > > provide defaults for the common cases. > > > > I say that because unless there's magic I'm unaware of these Kconfigs also needs > > to be configured per-KVM, not per-kernel: > > > > - KVM_MMU_LOCKLESS_AGING, otherwise aging on arm64 will unintentionally be done > > outside of mmu_lock. > > > > - KVM_GENERIC_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY, so that arm64 doesn't need to provide a stub > > for something it doesn't support > > > > - HAVE_KVM_MSI, because presumably it's needed for arm64 support. > > > > - HAVE_KVM_READONLY_MEM, same story as HAVE_KVM_MSI. > > And in the opposite direction, HAVE_KVM_VCPU_RUN_PID_CHANGE also falls into this > category. That one is probably better handled as a #define in header files? Continuing the conversation with myself, add in HAVE_KVM_NO_POLL and HAVE_KVM_INVALID_WAKEUPS (which reminds me, valid_wakeup should really be moved into s390's kvm_vcpu_arch). > > Which isn't _that_ many knobs, but add in KVM_MMIO, KVM_ASYNC_PF, and > > KVM_ASYNC_PF_SYNC, and it's enough that I think we should think about the big > > picture and not play whack-a-mole. > > > > Actually, thinking about this more, what I've proposed here, plus the pattern of > > #define-ing macros in arch-specific kvm_host.h files, should suffice. For things > > like __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VM_FREE, it absolutely makes sense to #define the macro in > > kvm_host.h since it's very directly tied to an arch callback. Whereas with KVM_MIO > > and KVM_ASYNC_PF, because they enable compilation of C files, it makes sense to > > define them in Makefiles. > > > > So I think the "gap" is purely that the four knobs listed above need handling > > (and arguably KVM_MMU_LOCKLESS_AGING is ok as-proposed). But I do think we should > > try our best to be more thoughtful than we usually are when deciding how to enable > > common code, because obviously s390+arm64 is adding wrinkles no one has had to deal > > with before. > >