[PATCH 09/37] KVM: arm64: Move debug dirty flag calculation out of world switch

[Andrew Jones]

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 06:25:46PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 03:09:19PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:41:13PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > There is no need to figure out inside the world-switch if we should
> > > save/restore the debug registers or not, we can might as well do that in
> > > the higher level debug setup code, making it easier to optimize down the
> > > line.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c        | 9 +++++++++
> > >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/debug-sr.c | 6 ------
> > >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> > > index dbadfaf..62550de19 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> > > @@ -193,6 +193,15 @@ void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  	if (trap_debug)
> > >  		vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2 |= MDCR_EL2_TDA;
> > >  
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * If any of KDE, MDE or KVM_ARM64_DEBUG_DIRTY is set, perform
> > > +	 * a full save/restore cycle.
> > 
> > The commit message implies testing KVM_ARM64_DEBUG_DIRTY, but it only
> > tests KDE and MDE.
> > 
> 
> You meant the comment, right?

yup

> 
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if ((vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, MDSCR_EL1) & DBG_MDSCR_KDE) ||
> > > +	    (vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, MDSCR_EL1) & DBG_MDSCR_MDE))
> > 
> > nit: could also write as
> > 
> >  if (vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, MDSCR_EL1) & (DBG_MDSCR_KDE | DBG_MDSCR_MDE))
> > 
> 
> I actually prefer it the other way, and I think the compiler will figure
> out what to do in terms of efficiency.

I won't argue about code aesthetics (although I disagree here :-). I will
point out that in this case the compiler will no doubt do the right thing,
as vcpu_sys_reg() is just a macro, but for a pointer taking function in
general there would be potential to get both calls emitted, as the
compiler wouldn't be sure there would be no side effect.

> 
> > > +		vcpu->arch.debug_flags |= KVM_ARM64_DEBUG_DIRTY;
> > > +
> > 
> > It looks like there's only one flag for debug_flags - this dirty flag,
> > which I guess is also used to trigger trapping. So maybe this could be a
> > second flag of a "lazy state" field, as I suggested earlier?
> > 
> 
> I'm going to leave this one for now, but we can improve that later on if
> we want to save a little space in the vcpu struct, or rather if we want
> to rearrange things to make frequently accessed fields fit in the same
> cache line.
>

OK

Thanks,
drew