From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 27 May 2013 14:45:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:50296 "EHLO localhost.localdomain" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S6823763Ab3E0MpL0Rvfe (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 May 2013 14:45:11 +0200 Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 13:45:11 +0100 (BST) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: David Daney cc: Sanjay Lal , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Ralf Baechle , Gleb Natapov , Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] KVM/MIPS32: Support for the new Virtualization ASE (VZ-ASE) In-Reply-To: <519A7249.1030302@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <1368942460-15577-1-git-send-email-sanjayl@kymasys.com> <519A4640.6060202@gmail.com> <456B70C6-A896-4B94-B8EF-DE6ED26CE859@kymasys.com> <519A7249.1030302@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 36613 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: macro@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Mon, 20 May 2013, David Daney wrote: > > That's rather risky as the implementation of this register (and its > > presence in the first place) is processor-specific. Do you maintain a > > list of PRId values the use of this register is safe with? > > > > FWIW: The MIPS-VZ architecture module requires the presence of CP0 scratch > registers that can be used for this in the exception handlers without having > to worry about using these implementation dependent registers. For the > trap-and-emulate only version, there really is no choice other than to > re-purpose some of the existing CP0 registers. Sure, I've just been wondering what the implementation does to make sure it does not go astray on a random processor out there. FWIW, offhand the ErrorEPC register, that's been universally present since MIPS III (and I doubt anyone cares of virtualising on earlier implementations), seems to me promising as a better choice -- of course that register can get clobbered if an error-class exception happens early on in exception processing, but in that case we're in a worse trouble than just clobbering one of the guest registers anyway and likely cannot recover at all regardless. Maciej