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
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).