Hi Julien,

> On 6 Sep 2021, at 18:36, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bertrand,
> 
> On 06/09/2021 09:29, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>> On 3 Sep 2021, at 23:49, Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>> Hi Julien,
>>>> 
>>>>> On 31 Aug 2021, at 15:47, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 31/08/2021 14:17, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Julien,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Bertrand,
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 27 Aug 2021, at 16:05, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Bertrand,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 25/08/2021 14:18, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sanitize CTR_EL0 value between cores.
>>>>>>>> In most cases different values will taint Xen but if different
>>>>>>>> i-cache policies are found, we choose the one which will be compatible
>>>>>>>> between all cores in terms of invalidation/data cache flushing 
>>>>>>>> strategy.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I understand that all the CPUs in Xen needs to agree on the cache flush 
>>>>>>> strategy. However...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In this case we need to activate the TID2 bit in HCR to emulate the
>>>>>>>> TCR_EL0 register for guests. This patch is not activating TID2 bit all
>>>>>>>> the time to limit the overhead when possible.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> as we discussed in an earlier version, a vCPU is unlikely (at least in 
>>>>>>> short/medium) to be able move across pCPU of different type. So the 
>>>>>>> vCPU would be pinned to a set of pCPUs. IOW, the guest would have to be 
>>>>>>> big.LITTLE aware and therefore would be able to do its own strategy 
>>>>>>> decision.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So I think we should be able to get away from trappings the registers.
>>>>>> I do agree that we should be able to get away from that in the long term 
>>>>>> once
>>>>>> we have cpupools properly set but right now this is the only way to have
>>>>>> something useable (I will not say right).
>>>>>> I will work on finding a way to setup properly cpupools (or something 
>>>>>> else as
>>>>>> we discussed earlier) but in the short term I think this is the best we 
>>>>>> can do.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My concern is you are making look like Xen will be able to deal nicely 
>>>>> with big.LITTLE when in fact there are a lot more potential issue by 
>>>>> allow a vCPU moving accross pCPU of different type (the errata is one 
>>>>> example).
>>>> 
>>>> I agree and this is why Xen is tainted.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> An other solution would be to discard this patch from the serie for now 
>>>>>> until
>>>>>> I have worked a proper solution for this case.
>>>>>> Should we discard or merge or do you have an other idea ?
>>>>> Please correct me if I am wrong, at the moment, it doesn't look like this 
>>>>> patch will be part of the longer plan. If so, then I think it should be 
>>>>> parked for now.
>>>> 
>>>> Not sure it depends on what the final solution would be but this is highly 
>>>> possible I agree.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> This would also have the advantage to avoid spending too much time on 
>>>>> resolving the emulation issue I mentioned in my previous answer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No need to resend a new version of this series yet. You can wait until 
>>>>> the rest of the series get more feedback.
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, I will wait for feedback and next serie will not include this patch 
>>>> anymore.
>>> 
>>> Would it be worth keeping just the part that sanitizes ctr, without any
>>> of the emulation stuff? That way we could still detect cases where there
>>> is a mismatch between CPUs, print a useful message and taint Xen.
>> That’s a good idea, it means removing the emulation part and just keep the 
>> sanitization.
>> @Julien: would you be ok with that ?
> 
> I actually thought about suggesting it before Stefano did it. So I am OK with 
> that.
> 
>> Should I send a v4 or should we use Stefano’s patch directly instead ?
> 
> I would suggest to send a v4. This needs a signed-off-by from Stefano and a 
> new commit message.

Ok I will do that beginning of next week.

Cheers
Bertrand

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Julien Grall

Reply via email to