From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] xen/hvm: introduce a flags field in
 the CPU save record
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 18:49:40 +0100
Message-ID: <56953CB4.6030806@citrix.com>
References: <1452615153-67387-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<1452615153-67387-2-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<5695388802000078000C6062@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=812c9b64b=roger.pau@citrix.com>)
	id 1aJ34k-0002B0-Dm
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:49:46 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5695388802000078000C6062@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

El 12/01/16 a les 17.31, Jan Beulich ha escrit:
>>>> On 12.01.16 at 17:12, <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>> @@ -2087,19 +2100,21 @@ static int hvm_load_cpu_ctxt(struct domain *d, hvm_domain_context_t *h)
>>      seg.attr.bytes = ctxt.ldtr_arbytes;
>>      hvm_set_segment_register(v, x86_seg_ldtr, &seg);
>>  
>> -    /* In case xsave-absent save file is restored on a xsave-capable host */
>> -    if ( cpu_has_xsave && !xsave_enabled(v) )
>> +    v->fpu_initialised = !!(ctxt.flags & XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED);
>> +    if ( v->fpu_initialised )
>>      {
>> -        struct xsave_struct *xsave_area = v->arch.xsave_area;
>> +        memcpy(v->arch.fpu_ctxt, ctxt.fpu_regs, sizeof(ctxt.fpu_regs));
>> +        /* In case xsave-absent save file is restored on a xsave-capable host */
>> +        if ( cpu_has_xsave && !xsave_enabled(v) )
>> +        {
>> +            struct xsave_struct *xsave_area = v->arch.xsave_area;
>>  
>> -        memcpy(v->arch.xsave_area, ctxt.fpu_regs, sizeof(ctxt.fpu_regs));
>> -        xsave_area->xsave_hdr.xstate_bv = XSTATE_FP_SSE;
>> -        if ( cpu_has_xsaves || cpu_has_xsavec )
>> -            xsave_area->xsave_hdr.xcomp_bv = XSTATE_FP_SSE |
>> -                                             XSTATE_COMPACTION_ENABLED;
>> +            xsave_area->xsave_hdr.xstate_bv = XSTATE_FP_SSE;
>> +            if ( cpu_has_xsaves || cpu_has_xsavec )
>> +                xsave_area->xsave_hdr.xcomp_bv = XSTATE_FP_SSE |
>> +                                                 XSTATE_COMPACTION_ENABLED;
>> +        }
>>      }
>> -    else
>> -        memcpy(v->arch.fpu_ctxt, ctxt.fpu_regs, sizeof(ctxt.fpu_regs));
>>  
> 
> I would have expected this to simply be re-indentation, yet
> you changed from if/else to just if with the else code done
> ahead of it. If this really is intended, the commit message should
> explain it.

Right, sorry. AFAICT v->arch.fpu_ctxt points to the xsave_area (as set
by vcpu_init_fpu), so I though it was simpler to just do one memcpy for
both cases, since v->arch.fpu_ctxt always points to the right area for
either cases (and I was already modifying the code in question).

I can see that this might be seen as an unrelated change, so if you want
I can split it into a separate patch, or add the following to the commit
message:

"While modifying the FPU restore part of hvm_load_cpu_ctxt remove the
memcpy branching, since v->arch.fpu_ctxt will always point to the right
area for hosts with XSAVE or without it."

Thanks, Roger.