[PATCH v2] arm64: KVM: Save four instructions in __guest_enter/exit()
Shanker Donthineni
shankerd at codeaurora.org
Tue Aug 30 05:22:03 PDT 2016
Hi Marc,
On 08/30/2016 05:54 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 30/08/16 10:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:51:14PM -0500, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
>>> We are doing an unnecessary stack push/pop operation when restoring
>>> the guest registers x0-x18 in __guest_enter(). This patch saves the
>>> two instructions by using x18 as a base register. No need to store
>>> the vcpu context pointer in stack because it is redundant, the same
>>> information is available in tpidr_el2. The function __guest_exit()
>>> prototype is simplified and caller pushes the regs x0-x1 to stack
>>> instead of regs x0-x3.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shanker Donthineni <shankerd at codeaurora.org>
>> This looks reasonable to me:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org>
>>
>> Unless Marc has any insight into this having a negative effect on ARM
>> CPUs, I'll go ahead an merge this.
> I've given it a go on Seattle, and couldn't observe any difference with
> the original code, which is pretty good news!
>
> I have some comments below, though:
>
>> -Christoffer
>>
>>> ---
>>> Changes since v1:
>>> Incorporated Cristoffer suggestions.
>>> __guest_exit prototype is changed to 'void __guest_exit(u64 reason,
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)'.
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/entry.S | 101
> +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S | 11 +++--
>>> 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/entry.S
>>> index ce9e5e5..f70489a 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/entry.S
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/entry.S
>>> @@ -55,75 +55,76 @@
>>> */
>>> ENTRY(__guest_enter)
>>> // x0: vcpu
>>> - // x1: host/guest context
>>> - // x2-x18: clobbered by macros
>>> + // x1: host context
>>> + // x2-x17: clobbered by macros
>>> + // x18: guest context
>>>
>>> // Store the host regs
>>> save_callee_saved_regs x1
>>>
>>> - // Preserve vcpu & host_ctxt for use at exit time
>>> - stp x0, x1, [sp, #-16]!
>>> + // Store the host_ctxt for use at exit time
>>> + str x1, [sp, #-16]!
>>>
>>> - add x1, x0, #VCPU_CONTEXT
>>> + add x18, x0, #VCPU_CONTEXT
>>>
>>> - // Prepare x0-x1 for later restore by pushing them onto the stack
>>> - ldp x2, x3, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(0)]
>>> - stp x2, x3, [sp, #-16]!
>>> + // Restore guest regs x0-x17
>>> + ldp x0, x1, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(0)]
>>> + ldp x2, x3, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(2)]
>>> + ldp x4, x5, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(4)]
>>> + ldp x6, x7, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(6)]
>>> + ldp x8, x9, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(8)]
>>> + ldp x10, x11, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(10)]
>>> + ldp x12, x13, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(12)]
>>> + ldp x14, x15, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(14)]
>>> + ldp x16, x17, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(16)]
>>>
>>> - // x2-x18
>>> - ldp x2, x3, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(2)]
>>> - ldp x4, x5, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(4)]
>>> - ldp x6, x7, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(6)]
>>> - ldp x8, x9, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(8)]
>>> - ldp x10, x11, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(10)]
>>> - ldp x12, x13, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(12)]
>>> - ldp x14, x15, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(14)]
>>> - ldp x16, x17, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(16)]
>>> - ldr x18, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(18)]
>>> + // Restore guest regs x19-x29, lr
>>> + restore_callee_saved_regs x18
>>>
>>> - // x19-x29, lr
>>> - restore_callee_saved_regs x1
>>> -
>>> - // Last bits of the 64bit state
>>> - ldp x0, x1, [sp], #16
>>> + // Restore guest reg x18
>>> + ldr x18, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(18)]
>>>
>>> // Do not touch any register after this!
>>> eret
>>> ENDPROC(__guest_enter)
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * void __guest_exit(u64 exit_reason, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>> + */
> I'm not sure this comment makes much sense as it stands. This is not a C
> function by any stretch of the imagination, but the continuation of
> __guest_enter. The calling convention is not the C one at all (see how
> the stack is involved), and caller-saved registers are going to be
> clobbered.
I'll remove this confusing comments.
>>> ENTRY(__guest_exit)
>>> - // x0: vcpu
>>> - // x1: return code
>>> - // x2-x3: free
>>> - // x4-x29,lr: vcpu regs
>>> - // vcpu x0-x3 on the stack
>>> -
>>> - add x2, x0, #VCPU_CONTEXT
>>> -
>>> - stp x4, x5, [x2, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(4)]
>>> - stp x6, x7, [x2, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(6)]
>>> - stp x8, x9, [x2, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(8)]
>>> - stp x10, x11, [x2, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(10)]
>>> - stp x12, x13, [x2, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(12)]
>>> - stp x14, x15, [x2, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(14)]
>>> - stp x16, x17, [x2, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(16)]
>>> - str x18, [x2, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(18)]
>>> -
>>> - ldp x6, x7, [sp], #16 // x2, x3
>>> - ldp x4, x5, [sp], #16 // x0, x1
>>> -
>>> - stp x4, x5, [x2, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(0)]
>>> - stp x6, x7, [x2, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(2)]
>>> + // x0: return code
>>> + // x1: vcpu
>>> + // x2-x29,lr: vcpu regs
>>> + // vcpu x0-x1 on the stack
>>> +
>>> + add x1, x1, #VCPU_CONTEXT
>>> +
>>> + // Store the guest regs x2 and x3
>>> + stp x2, x3, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(2)]
>>> +
>>> + // Retrieve the guest regs x0-x1 from the stack
>>> + ldp x2, x3, [sp], #16 // x0, x1
>>> +
>>> + // Store the guest regs x0-x1 and x4-x18
>>> + stp x2, x3, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(0)]
>>> + stp x4, x5, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(4)]
>>> + stp x6, x7, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(6)]
>>> + stp x8, x9, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(8)]
>>> + stp x10, x11, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(10)]
>>> + stp x12, x13, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(12)]
>>> + stp x14, x15, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(14)]
>>> + stp x16, x17, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(16)]
>>> + str x18, [x1, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(18)]
>>> +
>>> + // Store the guest regs x19-x29, lr
>>> + save_callee_saved_regs x1
>>>
>>> - save_callee_saved_regs x2
>>> + // Restore the host_ctxt from the stack
>>> + ldr x2, [sp], #16
>>>
>>> - // Restore vcpu & host_ctxt from the stack
>>> - // (preserving return code in x1)
>>> - ldp x0, x2, [sp], #16
>>> // Now restore the host regs
>>> restore_callee_saved_regs x2
>>>
>>> - mov x0, x1
>>> ret
>>> ENDPROC(__guest_exit)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S
> b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S
>>> index f6d9694..06e8b3b 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S
>>> @@ -121,14 +121,15 @@ el1_trap:
>>> cmp x2, #ESR_ELx_EC_FP_ASIMD
>>> b.eq __fpsimd_guest_restore
>>>
>>> - mrs x0, tpidr_el2
>>> - mov x1, #ARM_EXCEPTION_TRAP
>>> + ldp x2, x3, [sp], #16
>>> + mrs x1, tpidr_el2
>>> + mov x0, #ARM_EXCEPTION_TRAP
>>> b __guest_exit
>>>
>>> el1_irq:
>>> - save_x0_to_x3
> So the save_x0_to_x3 macro now only has one single user (and so does
> restore_x0_to_x3). Should we consider inline it?
Sure, I'll change to inline in v3 patch.
>>> - mrs x0, tpidr_el2
>>> - mov x1, #ARM_EXCEPTION_IRQ
>>> + stp x0, x1, [sp, #-16]!
>>> + mrs x1, tpidr_el2
>>> + mov x0, #ARM_EXCEPTION_IRQ
>>> b __guest_exit
>>>
>>> ENTRY(__hyp_do_panic)
>>> --
>>> Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. on behalf of the Qualcomm
> Technologies, Inc.
>>> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a
> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
> Thanks,
>
> M.
--
Shanker Donthineni
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list