From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] KVM: emulator: move linearize() out of emulator code.
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:57:42 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FE86046.6090702@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120624142753.GX6533@redhat.com>
On 06/24/2012 05:27 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 04:39:22PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> On 06/24/2012 04:27 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 04:12:05PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> >> On 06/12/2012 03:01 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> >> > The function will be used outside of the emulator.
>> >> >
>> >> > /*
>> >> > * x86_emulate_ops:
>> >> > *
>> >> > @@ -194,6 +199,10 @@ struct x86_emulate_ops {
>> >> >
>> >> > bool (*get_cpuid)(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
>> >> > u32 *eax, u32 *ebx, u32 *ecx, u32 *edx);
>> >> > +
>> >> > + int (*linearize)(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt,
>> >> > + struct segmented_address addr, unsigned size,
>> >> > + bool write, bool fetch, ulong *linear);
>> >> > };
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> linearize is defined in terms of the other ops; this means that if we
>> >> get a second user they will have to replicate it.
>> >>
>> > What do you mean? This patch series adds another user, so now there are two: one
>> > inside the emulator another is outside.
>>
>> I meant like task switching or real-mode interrupt emulation.
>>
> You mean code outside of KVM if we ever will make emulator reusable? It will have to
> have its own, much more simple version of the callback.
>
>> >
>> >> Why not make the current linearize available to users?
>> >>
>> > Code outside of the emulator does not call the emulator except when
>> > emulation is actually needed. To call linearize() from the emulator.c
>> > almost fully functional emulation ctxt will have to be set up (including
>> > fake instruction decoding, hacky and slower).
>>
>> ctxt->d use should be removed for the exported version and replaced by a
>> parameter. The internal version can still use it (calling the exported
>> version after extracting the parameter).
>>
> IMO we should stick to the pattern we have now: calling generic code from
> the emulator and not vice versa. Lets not create more spaghetti.
>
>> To not duplicate the logic
>> > I moved linearize() to generic code and made it available to emulator
>> > via callback. It actually saves a couple of callback invocations when
>> > emulator calls linearize() IIRC.
>>
>> It's not available to other emulator users (which don't exist yet
>> anyway). But having linearize() in the emulator is consistent with
>> placing logic in emulate.c and accessors outside.
>>
> It is the question of where we draw the line. For instance MMU details
> are now hidden from the emulator behind a callback. One can argue that
> emulator should have access to MMU directly via callbacks and
> emulate memory access by itself.
Right now the all segment related operations are behind the line; the
line is linear | physical. Having a ->linearize op will change that.
>
>> Regarding initialization, we should eventually initialize nothing and
>> let the emulator bring in needed data via callbacks (including general
>> registers).
>>
> Some things will have to be initialized (or rather reset to initial value)
> between emulator invocations. Access to registers can be done on demand,
> but this is unrelated to this series optimization.
Right. But I think we can have x86_linearize() that doesn't take a
context parameter, only ops.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-25 12:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-12 12:01 [PATCHv2 0/5] improve speed of "rep ins" emulation Gleb Natapov
2012-06-12 12:01 ` [PATCHv2 1/5] Provide userspace IO exit completion callback Gleb Natapov
2012-06-29 0:51 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-07-01 8:15 ` Gleb Natapov
2012-06-12 12:01 ` [PATCHv2 2/5] KVM: emulator: make x86 emulation modes enum instead of defines Gleb Natapov
2012-06-12 12:01 ` [PATCHv2 3/5] KVM: emulator: move some address manipulation function out of emulator code Gleb Natapov
2012-06-12 12:01 ` [PATCHv2 4/5] KVM: emulator: move linearize() " Gleb Natapov
2012-06-24 13:12 ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-24 13:27 ` Gleb Natapov
2012-06-24 13:39 ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-24 14:27 ` Gleb Natapov
2012-06-25 12:57 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2012-06-25 13:12 ` Gleb Natapov
2012-06-25 13:40 ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-25 14:17 ` Gleb Natapov
2012-06-25 14:32 ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-25 14:55 ` Gleb Natapov
2012-06-25 15:03 ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-25 15:35 ` Gleb Natapov
2012-06-25 15:50 ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-26 8:30 ` Gleb Natapov
2012-06-26 9:19 ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-12 12:01 ` [PATCHv2 5/5] KVM: Provide fast path for "rep ins" emulation if possible Gleb Natapov
2012-06-29 22:26 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-07-01 11:24 ` Gleb Natapov
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=4FE86046.6090702@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.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).