On 08/04/16 14:15, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:26:12PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
We have common routines to modify hyp and stage2 page tables
based on the 'kvm' parameter. For a smoother transition to
using separate routines for each, duplicate the routines
and modify the copy to work on hyp.
Marks the forked routines with _hyp_ and gets rid of the
kvm parameter which is no longer needed and is NULL for hyp.
Also, gets rid of calls to kvm_tlb_flush_by_vmid_ipa() calls
from the hyp versions. Uses explicit host page table accessors
instead of the kvm_* page table helpers.
Suggested-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>
+static void unmap_hyp_ptes(pmd_t *pmd, phys_addr_t addr, phys_addr_t end)
+{
+ pte_t *pte, *start_pte;
+
+ start_pte = pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, addr);
+ do {
+ if (!pte_none(*pte)) {
+ pte_t old_pte = *pte;
+
+ kvm_set_pte(pte, __pte(0));
+
+ /* XXX: Do we need to invalidate the cache for device mappings ? */
no, we will not be swapping out any pages mapped in Hyp mode so you can
get rid of both of the following two lines.
+ if (!kvm_is_device_pfn(pte_pfn(old_pte)))
+ kvm_flush_dcache_pte(old_pte);
+
+ put_page(virt_to_page(pte));
+ }
+ } while (pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
+
+ if (hyp_pte_table_empty(start_pte))
+ clear_hyp_pmd_entry(pmd);
+}
+
+static void unmap_hyp_pmds(pud_t *pud, phys_addr_t addr, phys_addr_t end)
+{
+ phys_addr_t next;
+ pmd_t *pmd, *start_pmd;
+
+ start_pmd = pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
+ do {
+ next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
+ if (!pmd_none(*pmd)) {
+ if (pmd_thp_or_huge(*pmd)) {
do we ever actually map anything with section mappings in the Hyp
mappings?
No, this is purely a page mapping so far. On my system, the HYP text is
just over 4 pages big (4k pages), so the incentive is pretty low, unless
we can demonstrate some big gains due to the reduced TLB impact.
+static void unmap_hyp_puds(pgd_t *pgd, phys_addr_t addr, phys_addr_t end)
+{
+ phys_addr_t next;
+ pud_t *pud, *start_pud;
+
+ start_pud = pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
+ do {
+ next = pud_addr_end(addr, end);
+ if (!pud_none(*pud)) {
+ if (pud_huge(*pud)) {
do we ever actually map anything with huge pud
mappings for the Hyp space?
Same thing. Looks like there is some potential simplification here.
+static void unmap_hyp_range(pgd_t *pgdp, phys_addr_t start, u64 size)
+{
+ pgd_t *pgd;
+ phys_addr_t addr = start, end = start + size;
+ phys_addr_t next;
+
+ pgd = pgdp + pgd_index(addr);
+ do {
+ next = pgd_addr_end(addr, end);
+ if (!pgd_none(*pgd))
+ unmap_hyp_puds(pgd, addr, next);
+ } while (pgd++, addr = next, addr != end);
shouldn't we flush the EL2 (hyp) TLB here, strictly speaking?
Or do we rely on all mappings ever created/torn down here to always have
the same VA/PA relationship? Since we didn't flush the EL2 TLB in the
existing code, that indeed does seem to be the case.
Actually, we never unmap anything from HYP.
Once a structure (kvm, vcpu)is mapped there, it stays forever, whatever happens
to the VM (that's because we'd otherwise have to refcount the number of objects in a page,
and I'm lazy...).