[PATCH v6 1/6] arm/arm64: KVM: Introduce armv7 fp/simd vcpu fields and helpers

[christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)]

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 11:28:18AM -0800, Mario Smarduch wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/5/2016 7:00 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > 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"
> > 
> > this looks dodgy...
> > 
> > can you move vfpinstr.h instead?
> Sure I'll fix it up, it's in couple other places in kernel and kvm
>  - copied it.
> > 
> >>  
> >>  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 */
> > 
> > the comment is misleading, you're not enabling guest access to the
> > fp/simd unit, you're just setting the enabled bit to ensure guest
> > accesses trap.
> 
> That's more accurate.
> > 
> >> +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 */
> > 
> > I would probably get rid of the "Called from" stuff and just describe
> > what these functions do locally.  Comments like this are likely to be
> > out of date soon'ish.
> 
> Yeah true, will do.
> > 
> >> +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;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static inline void vcpu_restore_host_fpexc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> >> +static inline bool vcpu_vfp_isdirty(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +{
> >> +	return false;
> >> +}
> >> +#endif
> > 
> > this kind of feels like it belongs in its own C-file instead of a header
> > file, perhaps arch/arm/kvm/vfp.C.
> > 
> > Marc, what do you think?
> > 
> 
> That would be starting from vcpu_trap_vfp_enable()? The file is getting
> little overloaded.

yes, starting from vcpu_trap_vfp_enable.

Which file is getting overloaded?

I'm thinking the assembly file you add in the next patch could be
inline assembly in a C-file combined with this code, perhaps.

> 
> I'm also thinking that 3rd patch should have one function call for vcpu_put
> like vcpu_load does instead of exposing arm32/arm64, arm32 only relevant logic.
> When you have a chance to review that patch please keep that in mind.
> 

ok, will try ;)

-Christoffer