From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: arm64: Access CNTHCTL_EL2 bit fields correctly on VHE systems Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:55:45 +0000 Message-ID: <20170113145545.GD2472@leverpostej> References: <1484307093-29153-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1484307093-29153-3-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <20170113123612.GA31994@cbox> <20170113144204.GB2472@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Paolo Bonzini , kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu To: Marc Zyngier Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:46550 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751739AbdAMO4p (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:56:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170113144204.GB2472@leverpostej> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 02:42:04PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 01:30:29PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 13/01/17 12:36, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > Further, are we guaranteed that the static branch gets compiled into > > > something that doesn't actually look at cpu_hwcap_keys, which is not > > > mapped in hyp mode? > > If I disable CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL (which lives under "General setup", with > teh title "Optimize very unlikely/likely branches"), I see adrp; add; > ldr sequences accessing cpu_hwcap_keys when using cpus_have_const_cap() > in hyp code, even with the patch below. Looking again, that's the same sequence Marc mentioned, as it falls in the BSS. I just happened to be looking at the unlinked .o file rather than the vmlinux. Sorry for the noise. Thanks, Mark.