From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, nadav.amit@gmail.com,
Rik van Riel <riel@fb.com>, Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 6/9] x86/apic: Introduce Remote Action Request Operations
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 08:28:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <036f8679-485a-4c99-92e7-f271a972fbf8@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250520010350.1740223-7-riel@surriel.com>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
> index 0c1c68039d6f..1ab9f5fcac8a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
> @@ -40,6 +40,9 @@ struct smp_ops {
>
> void (*send_call_func_ipi)(const struct cpumask *mask);
> void (*send_call_func_single_ipi)(int cpu);
> +
> + void (*send_rar_ipi)(const struct cpumask *mask);
> + void (*send_rar_single_ipi)(int cpu);
> };
I assume Yu-cheng did it this way.
I'm curios why new smp_ops are needed for this, though. It's not like
there are a bunch of different implementations to pick between.
> -void native_send_call_func_ipi(const struct cpumask *mask)
> +static void do_native_send_ipi(const struct cpumask *mask, int vector)
> {
> if (static_branch_likely(&apic_use_ipi_shorthand)) {
> unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> @@ -88,14 +88,19 @@ void native_send_call_func_ipi(const struct cpumask *mask)
> goto sendmask;
>
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mask))
> - __apic_send_IPI_all(CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR);
> + __apic_send_IPI_all(vector);
> else if (num_online_cpus() > 1)
> - __apic_send_IPI_allbutself(CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR);
> + __apic_send_IPI_allbutself(vector);
> return;
> }
>
> sendmask:
> - __apic_send_IPI_mask(mask, CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR);
> + __apic_send_IPI_mask(mask, vector);
> +}
> +
> +void native_send_call_func_ipi(const struct cpumask *mask)
> +{
> + do_native_send_ipi(mask, CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR);
> }
This refactoring probably belongs in a separate patch.
> void apic_send_nmi_to_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> @@ -106,6 +111,16 @@ void apic_send_nmi_to_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> return;
> apic->send_IPI(cpu, NMI_VECTOR);
> }
> +
> +void native_send_rar_single_ipi(int cpu)
> +{
> + apic->send_IPI_mask(cpumask_of(cpu), RAR_VECTOR);
> +}
> +
> +void native_send_rar_ipi(const struct cpumask *mask)
> +{
> + do_native_send_ipi(mask, RAR_VECTOR);
> +}
> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> static inline int __prepare_ICR2(unsigned int mask)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/local.h b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/local.h
> index bdcf609eb283..833669174267 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/local.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/local.h
> @@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ static inline unsigned int __prepare_ICR(unsigned int shortcut, int vector,
> case NMI_VECTOR:
> icr |= APIC_DM_NMI;
> break;
> + case RAR_VECTOR:
> + icr |= APIC_DM_RAR;
> + break;
> }
> return icr;
> }
I feel like this patch is doing three separate things:
1. Adds smp_ops
2. Refactors native_send_call_func_ipi()
3. Adds RAR support
None of those are huge, but it would make a lot more sense to break
those out. I'm also still not sure of the point of the smp_ops.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-21 15:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-20 1:02 [RFC v2 PATCH 0/9] Intel RAR TLB invalidation Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 1/9] x86/mm: Introduce MSR_IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 14:57 ` Dave Hansen
2025-05-22 15:10 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 2/9] x86/mm: Introduce Remote Action Request MSRs Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 11:49 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 3/9] x86/mm: enable BROADCAST_TLB_FLUSH on Intel, too Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 4/9] x86/mm: Introduce X86_FEATURE_RAR Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 11:53 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-05-21 13:57 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 14:53 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-05-21 16:06 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 19:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 5/9] x86/mm: Change cpa_flush() to call flush_kernel_range() directly Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 11:54 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-05-21 15:16 ` Dave Hansen
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 6/9] x86/apic: Introduce Remote Action Request Operations Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 9:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-06-04 0:11 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 15:28 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2025-05-21 15:59 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 7/9] x86/mm: Introduce Remote Action Request Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 9:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-05-20 12:57 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-24 9:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-05-20 11:29 ` Nadav Amit
2025-05-20 13:00 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 20:26 ` Nadav Amit
2025-05-20 20:31 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 16:38 ` Dave Hansen
2025-05-21 19:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-06-03 20:08 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 8/9] x86/mm: use RAR for kernel TLB flushes Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 9/9] x86/mm: userspace & pageout flushing using Intel RAR Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 2:48 ` [RFC v2.1 " Rik van Riel
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=036f8679-485a-4c99-92e7-f271a972fbf8@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@fb.com \
--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