All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: XSAVE/XRSTOR live migration support
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 14:34:19 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BFE58BB.6090404@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201005271833.11409.sheng@linux.intel.com>

On 05/27/2010 01:33 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
>
>> If we do that then xcr0 needs to be in a separate structure, say
>> kvm_xcr, with a flags field and reserved space of its own for future xcr
>> growth.
>>      
> I meant to put it into sregs, but found it's already full... How about "extended
> sregs"?
>    

Isn't this what xcr means?  xtended control register?

>>> +static void kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>> +					struct kvm_xsave *guest_xsave)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct xsave_struct *xsave =&vcpu->arch.guest_fpu.state->xsave;
>>> +
>>> +	if (!cpu_has_xsave)
>>> +		return;
>>>        
>> Hm, it would be nice to make it backward compatible and return the
>> legacy fpu instead.  I think the layouts are compatible?
>>      
> Sound good.  But seems we still need KVM_CAP_XSAVE to use this interface, and
> other processors would still go FPU interface. Seems didn't improve much?
>    

I would like the new interface to be used in all cases, this way we can 
deprecate the old one in a few years.

>>> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm.h b/include/linux/kvm.h
>>> index 23ea022..5006761 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/kvm.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/kvm.h
>>> @@ -524,6 +524,9 @@ struct kvm_enable_cap {
>>>
>>>    #define KVM_CAP_PPC_OSI 52
>>>    #define KVM_CAP_PPC_UNSET_IRQ 53
>>>    #define KVM_CAP_ENABLE_CAP 54
>>>
>>> +#ifdef __KVM_HAVE_XSAVE
>>> +#define KVM_CAP_XSAVE 55
>>> +#endif
>>>        
>> Might make sense to have a separate KVM_CAP_XCR, just for consistency.
>>      
> Maybe EXTENDED_SREGS? But still every future field in the struct need a CAP...
>    

Might do

struct kvm_xcr {
     __u32 xcr;
     __u32 reserved;
     __u64 value;
};

struct kvm_xcrs {
     __u32 nr_xcrs;
     __u32 flags;
     struct kvm_xcr xcrs[KVM_MAX_XCRS];
     ... reserved;
};

which would allow new xcrs to be added easily.

You'll need to change kvm_set_xcr0() to kvm_set_xcr() for this to work 
though.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


  reply	other threads:[~2010-05-27 11:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-05-27  9:48 [PATCH] KVM: x86: XSAVE/XRSTOR live migration support Sheng Yang
2010-05-27 10:02 ` Avi Kivity
2010-05-27 10:33   ` Sheng Yang
2010-05-27 11:34     ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2010-05-31 11:21   ` Sheng Yang
2010-05-31 11:26     ` Avi Kivity

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=4BFE58BB.6090404@redhat.com \
    --to=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=sheng@linux.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.