Re: [PATCH 3/5] arm64: KVM: vgic-v2: Add the GICV emulation infrastructure

Marc Zyngier
2016-09-01T14:28:39Z

On 01/09/16 13:46, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 01:38:13PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> In order to efficiently perform the GICV access on behalf of the
>> guest, we need to be able to do avoid going back all the way to
>
> s/do//
>
>> the host kernel.
>>
>> For this, we introduce a new hook in the world switch code,
>> conveniently placed just after populating the fault info.
>> At that point, we only have saved/restored the GP registers,
>> and we can quickly perform all the required checks (data abort,
>> translation fault, valid faulting syndrome, not an external
>> abort, not a PTW).
>>
>> Coming back from the emulation code, we need to skip the emulated
>> instruction. This involves an additional bit of save/restore in
>> order to be able to access the guest's PC (and possibly CPSR if
>> this is a 32bit guest).
>>
>> At this stage, no emulation code is provided.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_hyp.h | 1 +
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 3 +++
>> virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v2-sr.c | 7 +++++++
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c | 2 ++
>> 5 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_hyp.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_hyp.h
>> index cff5105..88ec3ac 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_hyp.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_hyp.h
>> @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ typeof(orig) * __hyp_text fname(void) \
>>
>> void __vgic_v2_save_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>> void __vgic_v2_restore_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>> +bool __vgic_v2_perform_cpuif_access(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>
>> void __vgic_v3_save_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>> void __vgic_v3_restore_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>> index ae7855f..0be1594 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>>
>> #include <linux/types.h>
>> #include <asm/kvm_asm.h>
>> +#include <asm/kvm_emulate.h>
>> #include <asm/kvm_hyp.h>
>>
>> static bool __hyp_text __fpsimd_enabled_nvhe(void)
>> @@ -232,6 +233,21 @@ static bool __hyp_text __populate_fault_info(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>> +static void __hyp_text __skip_instr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> + vcpu->arch.ctxt.gp_regs.regs.pc = read_sysreg_el2(elr);
>> +
>> + if (vcpu_mode_is_32bit(vcpu)) {
>> + vcpu->arch.ctxt.gp_regs.regs.pstate = read_sysreg_el2(spsr);
>> + kvm_skip_aarch32_instr(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_trap_il_is32bit(vcpu));
>> + write_sysreg_el2(vcpu->arch.ctxt.gp_regs.regs.pstate, spsr);
>> + } else {
>> + *vcpu_pc(vcpu) += 4;
>> + }
>> +
>> + write_sysreg_el2(vcpu->arch.ctxt.gp_regs.regs.pc, elr);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int __hyp_text __guest_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> {
>> struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt;
>> @@ -270,6 +286,22 @@ again:
>> if (exit_code == ARM_EXCEPTION_TRAP && !__populate_fault_info(vcpu))
>> goto again;
>>
>> + if (static_branch_unlikely(&vgic_v2_cpuif_trap) &&
>> + exit_code == ARM_EXCEPTION_TRAP) {
>
> do you get the static branch benefit when the test contains an &&
> clause? (I haven't looked at the generated assembly, no)

You do, otherwise the C semantics would be broken. This is strictly
equivalent to:

if (static_branch_unlikely()) {
if (exit_code == ...) {
[...]
}
}

> Also, if you flip this static branch for code both mapped in EL1 and
> EL2, would you potentially need some form of additional icache
> maintenance here?
>
> Or are you relying on the static branch being set at boot time and hold
> forever true/false?

I asked myself this exact question when I did this, and became convinced
that this was OK for two reasons:
- we do it only once
- when we do it, we haven't executed that code yet, so it cannot be in
the cache yet

>
>> + bool valid;
>> +
>> + valid = kvm_vcpu_trap_get_class(vcpu) == ESR_ELx_EC_DABT_LOW &&
>> + kvm_vcpu_trap_get_fault_type(vcpu) == FSC_FAULT &&
>> + kvm_vcpu_dabt_isvalid(vcpu) &&
>> + !kvm_vcpu_dabt_isextabt(vcpu) &&
>> + !kvm_vcpu_dabt_iss1tw(vcpu);
>> +
>> + if (valid && __vgic_v2_perform_cpuif_access(vcpu)) {
>
> extra whitespace
>
>> + __skip_instr(vcpu);
>
> does this interact in any amusing way with single-step guest debugging?

Ouch. Good point. Actually, nothing that uses kvm_skip_instr() works for
singlestep/watchpoint either (trapped sysreg, WFx, spurious traps,
MMIO). I guess that's something we need to fix overall.

Thanks,

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...