[PATCH 3/3] KVM/arm64: enable enhanced armv8 fp/simd lazy switch
Christoffer Dall
christoffer.dall at linaro.org
Fri Nov 6 03:29:07 PST 2015
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 04:57:12PM -0800, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>
>
> On 11/5/2015 7:02 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:56:33PM -0700, Mario Smarduch wrote:
> >> This patch enables arm64 lazy fp/simd switch, similar to arm described in
> >> second patch. Change from previous version - restore function is moved to
> >> host.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mario Smarduch <m.smarduch at samsung.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 +-
> >> arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 1 +
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >> 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> index 26a2347..dcecf92 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> @@ -251,11 +251,11 @@ static inline void kvm_arch_hardware_unsetup(void) {}
> >> static inline void kvm_arch_sync_events(struct kvm *kvm) {}
> >> static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_uninit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> >> static inline void kvm_arch_sched_in(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu) {}
> >> -static inline void kvm_restore_host_vfp_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> >>
> >> void kvm_arm_init_debug(void);
> >> void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> +void kvm_restore_host_vfp_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >>
> >> #endif /* __ARM64_KVM_HOST_H__ */
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> >> index 8d89cf8..c9c5242 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> >> @@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ int main(void)
> >> DEFINE(VCPU_HCR_EL2, offsetof(struct kvm_vcpu, arch.hcr_el2));
> >> DEFINE(VCPU_MDCR_EL2, offsetof(struct kvm_vcpu, arch.mdcr_el2));
> >> DEFINE(VCPU_IRQ_LINES, offsetof(struct kvm_vcpu, arch.irq_lines));
> >> + DEFINE(VCPU_VFP_DIRTY, offsetof(struct kvm_vcpu, arch.vfp_dirty));
> >> DEFINE(VCPU_HOST_CONTEXT, offsetof(struct kvm_vcpu, arch.host_cpu_context));
> >> DEFINE(VCPU_HOST_DEBUG_STATE, offsetof(struct kvm_vcpu, arch.host_debug_state));
> >> DEFINE(VCPU_TIMER_CNTV_CTL, offsetof(struct kvm_vcpu, arch.timer_cpu.cntv_ctl));
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
> >> index e583613..ed2c4cf 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
> >> @@ -36,6 +36,28 @@
> >> #define CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(x) (CPU_SYSREGS + 8*x)
> >>
> >> .text
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * void kvm_restore_host_vfp_state(struct vcpu *vcpu) - Executes lazy
> >> + * fp/simd switch, saves the guest, restores host. Called from host
> >> + * mode, placed outside of hyp section.
> >
> > same comments on style as previous patch
> Got it.
> >
> >> + */
> >> +ENTRY(kvm_restore_host_vfp_state)
> >> + push xzr, lr
> >> +
> >> + add x2, x0, #VCPU_CONTEXT
> >> + mov w3, #0
> >> + strb w3, [x0, #VCPU_VFP_DIRTY]
> >
> > I've been discussing with myself if it would make more sense to clear
> > the dirty flag in the C-code...
> Since all the work is done here I placed it here.
yeah, that's what I thought first, but then I thought it's typically
easier to understand the logic in the C-code and this is technically a
side-effect from the name of the function "kvm_restore_host_vfp_state"
which should then be "kvm_restore_host_vfp_state_and_clear_dirty_flag"
:)
> >
> >> +
> >> + bl __save_fpsimd
> >> +
> >> + ldr x2, [x0, #VCPU_HOST_CONTEXT]
> >> + bl __restore_fpsimd
> >> +
> >> + pop xzr, lr
> >> + ret
> >> +ENDPROC(kvm_restore_host_vfp_state)
> >> +
> >> .pushsection .hyp.text, "ax"
> >> .align PAGE_SHIFT
> >>
> >> @@ -482,7 +504,11 @@
> >> 99:
> >> msr hcr_el2, x2
> >> mov x2, #CPTR_EL2_TTA
> >> +
> >> + ldrb w3, [x0, #VCPU_VFP_DIRTY]
> >> + tbnz w3, #0, 98f
> >> orr x2, x2, #CPTR_EL2_TFP
> >> +98:
> >
> > mmm, don't you need to only set the fpexc32 when you're actually going
> > to trap the guest accesses?
>
> My understanding is you always need to set enable in fpexec32 for 32 bit guests,
> otherwise EL1 would get the trap instead of EL2. Not sure if that's the point
> you're making.
>
If you're expecting to trap all accesses by setting CPTR_EL2_TFP and
you're running a 32-bit guest, you must also enable in fpexec32, because
otherwise the trap is not taken to EL2, but to EL1 instead.
Before these patches, we *always* expected to trap VFP accesses after
entering the guest, but since that has now changed, you should only
fiddle with fpexec32 if you are indeed trapping (first entry after
vcpu_load) and if it's a 32-bit VM.
Does that help?
> >
> > also, you can consider only setting this in vcpu_load (jumping quickly
> > to EL2 to do so) if we're running a 32-bit guest. Probably worth
> > measuring the difference between the extra EL2 jump on vcpu_load
> > compared to hitting this register on every entry/exit.
>
> Sure, makes sense since this is a hot code path.
> >
> > Code-wise, it will be nicer to do it on vcpu_load.
> >
> >> msr cptr_el2, x2
> >>
> >> mov x2, #(1 << 15) // Trap CP15 Cr=15
> >> @@ -669,14 +695,12 @@ __restore_debug:
> >> ret
> >>
> >> __save_fpsimd:
> >> - skip_fpsimd_state x3, 1f
> >> save_fpsimd
> >> -1: ret
> >> + ret
> >>
> >> __restore_fpsimd:
> >> - skip_fpsimd_state x3, 1f
> >> restore_fpsimd
> >> -1: ret
> >> + ret
> >>
> >> switch_to_guest_fpsimd:
> >> push x4, lr
> >> @@ -688,6 +712,9 @@ switch_to_guest_fpsimd:
> >>
> >> mrs x0, tpidr_el2
> >>
> >> + mov w2, #1
> >> + strb w2, [x0, #VCPU_VFP_DIRTY]
> >
> > hmm, just noticing this. Are you not writing a 32-bit value to a
> > potentially 8-bit field (ignoring padding in the struct), as the dirty
> > flag is declared a bool.
>
> From the manuals byte stores require a word size registers on arm64/arm32.
> The interconnect probably drops the remaining bytes.
> Also double checked and the compiler uses same instructions.
>
duh, I didn't see the 'b' in strb - I guess I was too tired to review
patches.
-Christoffer
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list