From: Mario Smarduch <m.smarduch@samsung.com>
To: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Cc: marc.zyngier@arm.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] arm/arm64: KVM: Introduce armv7 fp/simd vcpu fields and helpers
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:02:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5698531E.1090606@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160114132718.GA4329@cbox>
On 1/14/2016 5:27 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 07:03:04PM -0800, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/2016 4:57 PM, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/12/2016 6:12 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:39:21PM -0800, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/10/2016 8:32 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Mario,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I spotted one more potential issue...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 01:54:55PM -0800, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>>>>>>> Add helper functions to enable access to fp/smid on guest entry and save host
>>>>>>> fpexc on vcpu put, check if fp/simd registers are dirty and add new vcpu
>>>>>>> fields.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mario Smarduch <m.smarduch@samsung.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 6 ++++++
>>>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h | 8 +++++++
>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 56 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h
>>>>>>> index 3095df0..d4d9da1 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h
>>>>>>> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
>>>>>>> #include <asm/kvm_mmio.h>
>>>>>>> #include <asm/kvm_arm.h>
>>>>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>>>>> +#include <asm/vfp.h>
>>>>>>> +#include "../vfp/vfpinstr.h"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> unsigned long *vcpu_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u8 reg_num);
>>>>>>> unsigned long *vcpu_spsr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>>>>>> @@ -255,4 +257,44 @@ static inline unsigned long vcpu_data_host_to_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_VFPv3
>>>>>>> +/* Called from vcpu_load - save fpexc and enable guest access to fp/simd unit */
>>>>>>> +static inline void vcpu_trap_vfp_enable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + u32 fpexc;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* Save host fpexc, and enable guest access to fp unit */
>>>>>>> + fpexc = fmrx(FPEXC);
>>>>>>> + vcpu->arch.host_fpexc = fpexc;
>>>>>>> + fpexc |= FPEXC_EN;
>>>>>>> + fmxr(FPEXC, fpexc);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* Configure HCPTR to trap on tracing and fp/simd access */
>>>>>>> + vcpu->arch.hcptr = HCPTR_TTA | HCPTR_TCP(10) | HCPTR_TCP(11);
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +/* Called from vcpu_put - restore host fpexc */
>>>>>>> +static inline void vcpu_restore_host_fpexc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + fmxr(FPEXC, vcpu->arch.host_fpexc);
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +/* If trap bits are reset then fp/simd registers are dirty */
>>>>>>> +static inline bool vcpu_vfp_isdirty(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + return !(vcpu->arch.hcptr & (HCPTR_TCP(10) | HCPTR_TCP(11)));
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>>> +static inline void vcpu_trap_vfp_enable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + vcpu->arch.hcptr = HCPTR_TTA;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it correct not to trap VFP registers when the host kernel does not
>>>>>> have CONFIG_VFPv3? I think this is a change in functionality compared
>>>>>> to the current kernels is it not?
>>>>>
>>>>> With CPU_V7 VFPv3 gets selected, without it fp should be emulated,
>>>>> with exceptions taken in guest kernel. I don't see a reason why
>>>>> fp hcptr access should be enabled in that case.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you have to guests with CONFIG_VFPV3 but your host doesn't have
>>>> CONFIG_VFPV3, you will never context-switch the VFP registers between
>>>> the two VMs, and mayhem will ensue.
>>>>
>>>> Unless I'm missing something very obvious?
>>
>> Did more testing on this enabling OABI_COMPAT and selecting
>> NWFPE/FastFPE breaks the boot. So far can't find a way to boot host
>> without VFP/VFPv3 enabled on ARMv7. CPU_V7 defaults to VFPv3
>> selection. I'm wondering if !VFPv3 path should be removed from
>> the patches?
>>
> I think this is related to your particular choice of userspace.
It appears like there are two soft float implementations.
FastFPE - but that's missing arch/arm/fastfpe directory, the option
can still be selected but nothing is built.
And the Netwidner FPE arch/arm/nwfpe, that doesn't appear to be
hooked into the kernel. The hook nwfpe_enter is not referenced
anywhere.
I could make this change but have no way to bring the host up to
test it.
- Mario
> I think
> it's fair to assume VFP is enabled for a KVM host, but I don't have
> enough familiarity with this to be sure.
>
> Marc, any thoughts?
>
> -Christoffer
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-15 2:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-26 21:54 [PATCH v6 0/6] arm/arm64: KVM: Enhance armv7/8 fp/simd lazy switch Mario Smarduch
2015-12-26 21:54 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] arm/arm64: KVM: Introduce armv7 fp/simd vcpu fields and helpers Mario Smarduch
2016-01-05 15:00 ` Christoffer Dall
2016-01-05 19:28 ` Mario Smarduch
2016-01-10 16:32 ` Christoffer Dall
2016-01-11 23:17 ` Mario Smarduch
2016-01-10 16:32 ` Christoffer Dall
2016-01-11 23:39 ` Mario Smarduch
2016-01-12 14:12 ` Christoffer Dall
2016-01-13 0:57 ` Mario Smarduch
2016-01-14 3:03 ` Mario Smarduch
2016-01-14 13:27 ` Christoffer Dall
2016-01-14 13:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2016-01-15 2:02 ` Mario Smarduch [this message]
2016-01-15 9:03 ` Marc Zyngier
2016-01-16 1:21 ` Mario Smarduch
2016-01-21 2:29 ` Mario Smarduch
2015-12-26 21:54 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] arm: KVM: Introduce host fp/simd context switch function Mario Smarduch
2016-01-10 16:31 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-12-26 21:54 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] arm/arm64: KVM: Enable armv7 fp/simd enhanced context switch Mario Smarduch
2016-01-10 16:32 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-12-26 21:54 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] arm: KVM: Delete unused macros Mario Smarduch
2016-01-10 16:32 ` Christoffer Dall
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=5698531E.1090606@samsung.com \
--to=m.smarduch@samsung.com \
--cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.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).