[PATCH v4 12/14] ARM64: KVM: vgic_elrsr and vgic_eisr need to be byteswapped in BE case
Victor Kamensky
victor.kamensky at linaro.org
Mon Jun 23 09:40:14 PDT 2014
On 23 June 2014 01:26, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com> wrote:
> On 21/06/14 18:19, Victor Kamensky wrote:
>> On 21 June 2014 02:53, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Victor,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 19 2014 at 04:46:14 AM, Victor Kamensky <victor.kamensky at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> Christoffer, Marc,
>>>>
>>>> Please see inline. I am looking for your opinion/advise on how
>>>> we go further about this patch.
>>>>
>>>> On 14 June 2014 08:47, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 08:42:58AM -0700, Victor Kamensky wrote:
>>>>>> On 14 June 2014 08:04, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 09:30:11AM -0700, Victor Kamensky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On arm64 'u32 vgic_eisr[2];' and 'u32 vgic_elrsr[2]' are accessed as
>>>>>>>> one 'unsigned long *' bit fields, which has 64bit size. So we need to
>>>>>>>> swap least significant word with most significant word when code reads
>>>>>>>> those registers from h/w.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Victor Kamensky <victor.kamensky at linaro.org>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 7 +++++++
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>>>>>>>> index 0620691..5035b41 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>>>>>>>> @@ -415,10 +415,17 @@ CPU_BE( rev w11, w11 )
>>>>>>>> str w4, [x3, #VGIC_CPU_HCR]
>>>>>>>> str w5, [x3, #VGIC_CPU_VMCR]
>>>>>>>> str w6, [x3, #VGIC_CPU_MISR]
>>>>>>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN
>>>>>>>> str w7, [x3, #VGIC_CPU_EISR]
>>>>>>>> str w8, [x3, #(VGIC_CPU_EISR + 4)]
>>>>>>>> str w9, [x3, #VGIC_CPU_ELRSR]
>>>>>>>> str w10, [x3, #(VGIC_CPU_ELRSR + 4)]
>>>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>>>> + str w7, [x3, #(VGIC_CPU_EISR + 4)]
>>>>>>>> + str w8, [x3, #VGIC_CPU_EISR]
>>>>>>>> + str w9, [x3, #(VGIC_CPU_ELRSR + 4)]
>>>>>>>> + str w10, [x3, #VGIC_CPU_ELRSR]
>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>> str w11, [x3, #VGIC_CPU_APR]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /* Clear GICH_HCR */
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 1.8.1.4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought Marc had something here which allowed you to deal with the
>>>>>>> conversion in the accessor functions and avoid this patch?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christoffer, I appreciate your review comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I was missing something. Yes, Marc mentioned in [1] about
>>>>>> his new changes in vgic3 series. But just after rereading it now, I
>>>>>> realized that he was suggesting to pick up his commits and add
>>>>>> them to this series. Is it my right understanding that they should
>>>>>> be [2] and [3] ... looking a bit closer to it, it seems that [4] is needed
>>>>>> as well. I am concerned that I don't understand all dependencies
>>>>>> and impact of those. Wondering about other way around. When vgic3
>>>>>> series introduced could we just back off above change and do it in
>>>>>> new right way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2014-May/009618.html
>>>>>> [2] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2014-May/009475.html
>>>>>> [3] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2014-May/009472.html
>>>>>> [4] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2014-May/009473.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other question: I was testing all this directly on vanilla v3.15, should I
>>>>>> use some other armkvm specific integration branch to make sure it works
>>>>>> with all other in a queue armkvm changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In mean time I will try to pick up [4], [2], and [3] into v3.15 and see
>>>>>> how it goes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> ok, thanks. I'm ok with potentially adjusting this later if it turns
>>>>> out to be a pain, depends on what Marc says.
>>>>
>>>> I've tried BE KVM series along with Marc's vgic3 series
>>>> and looked closely at picking up accessors to eisr and elrsr
>>>> from the vgic3 series ([1] and [2]). It is not trivial. First of
>>>> all, existing patches besides accessors introduce callbacks
>>>> in vgic_ops, and that pulls pretty much everything before it.
>>>> I did try to split [1] and [2] into couple patches each,
>>>> one with accessors and another adding vgic_ops callbacks.
>>>> In such way I could pick first part and leave vgic_ops
>>>> callback in the series. Split worked OK. I can give example
>>>> how it would look. However when I've tried to move accessors
>>>> part to top of Marc's vgic3 series I got massive conflicts.
>>>> Personally I don't have confidence that I can resolve them
>>>> correctly, and I don't think Marc would want to do that
>>>> as well. I don't think it is worth it.
>>>>
>>>> Instead I propose let's come back to cleaning it up latter
>>>> after vgic3 code gets in. I've tried the following patch in
>>>> tree with combined series and it worked OK.
>>>>
>>>> Author: Victor Kamensky <victor.kamensky at linaro.org>
>>>> Date: Tue Jun 17 21:20:25 2014 -0700
>>>>
>>>> ARM64: KVM: change vgic2 eisr and elrsr word order in big endian case
>>>>
>>>> Now when code uses eisr and elrsr the accessors, move big endian
>>>> related code into the accessors. Now in eisr and elrsr arrays
>>>> keep least siginificant word at index 0 and most siginificant
>>>> word at index 1. Asm code that stores values in array is the
>>>> same for little and big endian cases. Correct endian neutral
>>>> access to u64 values provided by accessors functions.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Victor Kamensky <victor.kamensky at linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic-v2-switch.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic-v2-switch.S
>>>> index d5fc5aa..ae21177 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic-v2-switch.S
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic-v2-switch.S
>>>> @@ -67,17 +67,10 @@ CPU_BE( rev w11, w11 )
>>>> str w4, [x3, #VGIC_V2_CPU_HCR]
>>>> str w5, [x3, #VGIC_V2_CPU_VMCR]
>>>> str w6, [x3, #VGIC_V2_CPU_MISR]
>>>> -#ifndef CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN
>>>> str w7, [x3, #VGIC_V2_CPU_EISR]
>>>> str w8, [x3, #(VGIC_V2_CPU_EISR + 4)]
>>>> str w9, [x3, #VGIC_V2_CPU_ELRSR]
>>>> str w10, [x3, #(VGIC_V2_CPU_ELRSR + 4)]
>>>> -#else
>>>> - str w7, [x3, #(VGIC_V2_CPU_EISR + 4)]
>>>> - str w8, [x3, #VGIC_V2_CPU_EISR]
>>>> - str w9, [x3, #(VGIC_V2_CPU_ELRSR + 4)]
>>>> - str w10, [x3, #VGIC_V2_CPU_ELRSR]
>>>> -#endif
>>>> str w11, [x3, #VGIC_V2_CPU_APR]
>>>>
>>>> /* Clear GICH_HCR */
>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic-v2.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic-v2.c
>>>> index a55a9a4..a4b6f13 100644
>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic-v2.c
>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic-v2.c
>>>> @@ -79,14 +79,30 @@ static void vgic_v2_sync_lr_elrsr(struct kvm_vcpu
>>>> *vcpu, int lr,
>>>>
>>>> static u64 vgic_v2_get_elrsr(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> {
>>>> + u64 ret;
>>>> const u32 *elrsr = vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v2.vgic_elrsr;
>>>> - return *(u64 *)elrsr;
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * vgic v2 elrsr is kept as two words, with least significant
>>>> + * word first. Get its value in endian agnostic way.
>>>> + */
>>>> + ret = *(elrsr + 1);
>>>> + ret = ret << 32;
>>>> + ret = ret | *elrsr;
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static u64 vgic_v2_get_eisr(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> {
>>>> + u64 ret;
>>>> const u32 *eisr = vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v2.vgic_eisr;
>>>> - return *(u64 *)eisr;
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * vgic v2 eisr is kept as two words, with least siginificant
>>>> + * word first. Get its value in endian agnostic way.
>>>> + */
>>>> + ret = *(eisr + 1);
>>>> + ret = ret << 32;
>>>> + ret = ret | *eisr;
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static u32 vgic_v2_get_interrupt_status(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>
>>>> Basically it backoffs this commit and changes accessor to read
>>>> values assuming that vgic_v2 eisr and elrsr array holds value of
>>>> least siginificant word at index 0, and most significant word at
>>>> index 1.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know what you think.
>>>
>>> I very much like this solution. Do you mind if I fold this into the
>>> GICv3 series?
>>
>> Sure, absolutely, please go ahead.
>>
>> I am not sure about order of getting into kvmarm tree between
>> GICv3 series and BE KVM series, If BE KVM series go first, you can
>> pickup accessors changes right now and add backout of
>> asm file change when it sees BE KVM series. Actually you would
>> need to back them out not from vgic-v2-switch.S but from hyp.S
>> (that was one of few conflicts when I've tried both series together).
>> If GICv3 series go first, again accessors changes could be picked
>> right now and when KVM BE series sees hyp.S change will have
>> to be dropped.
>
> I had a quick look myself, and it feels like having GICv3 first and then
> KVM-BE after that is a bit easier. I don't want to put the burden of
> that on you though, so I'll probably end up doing the merge myself.
>
> Would you be OK to review it?
Sure, either way. Note, that while working on this thread I just
tried KVM BE series after GICv3 series, so I have my resolutions
version and it was not much. It won't be burden for me to come
up with series that is based on top of GICv3 code.If you want to
do it yourself it is fine too.
In this case, if you will pick up accessors part. This patch
will have to be dropped during series merge.
Note at this point all patches except [1] are reviewed. IMHO [1] is
minor issue. When you or Christoffer have time please take a look
at it.
[1] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2014-June/010022.html
Thanks,
Victor
> Thanks,
>
> M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list