[PATCH v5 08/12] KVM: arm64: re-factor hyp.S debug register code
From: Alex Bennée <hidden>
Date: 2015-06-04 10:34:49
Also in:
kvm, kvmarm, lkml
Christoffer Dall [off-list ref] writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:30:24AM +0100, Alex Benn?e wrote:quoted
This is a pre-cursor to sharing the code with the guest debug support. This replaces the big macro that fishes data out of a fixed location with a more general helper macro to restore a set of debug registers. It uses macro substitution so it can be re-used for debug control and value registers. It does however rely on the debug registers being 64 bit aligned (as they happen to be in the hyp ABI).
Oops I'd better fix that commit comment.
quoted
Signed-off-by: Alex Benn?e <redacted> --- v3: - return to the patch series - add save and restore targets - change register use and document v4: - keep original setup/restore names - don't use split u32/u64 structure yet --- arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 519 ++++++++++++++------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 140 insertions(+), 379 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S index 74e63d8..9c4897d 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S[...]quoted
@@ -465,195 +318,52 @@ msr mdscr_el1, x25 .endm -.macro restore_debug - // x2: base address for cpu context - // x3: tmp register - - mrs x26, id_aa64dfr0_el1 - ubfx x24, x26, #12, #4 // Extract BRPs - ubfx x25, x26, #20, #4 // Extract WRPs - mov w26, #15 - sub w24, w26, w24 // How many BPs to skip - sub w25, w26, w25 // How many WPs to skip - - add x3, x2, #CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(DBGBCR0_EL1) +.macro restore_debug type + // x4: pointer to register set + // x5: number of registers to skipnit: use tabs instead of spaces here...quoted
+ // x6..x22 trashed[...]quoted
@@ -887,12 +597,63 @@ __restore_sysregs: restore_sysregs ret +/* Save debug state */ __save_debug: - save_debug + // x0: base address for vcpu context + // x2: ptr to current CPU context + // x4/x5: trashedI had a bunch of questions here which I think you missed last time around: 1. why do we need the vcpu context?
We don't, I'll drop that
2. what does 'current' mean here?
Either the host or vcpu context depending which way we are currently going.
3. you're also trashing everything that save_debug trashes, so x4/5,
x6-x22 trashed would be more correctOK
quoted
+ + mrs x26, id_aa64dfr0_el1 + ubfx x24, x26, #12, #4 // Extract BRPs + ubfx x25, x26, #20, #4 // Extract WRPs + mov w26, #15 + sub w24, w26, w24 // How many BPs to skip + sub w25, w26, w25 // How many WPs to skip + + mov x5, x24 + add x4, x2, #CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(DBGBCR0_EL1) + save_debug dbgbcr + add x4, x2, #CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(DBGBVR0_EL1) + save_debug dbgbvr + + mov x5, x25 + add x4, x2, #CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(DBGWCR0_EL1) + save_debug dbgwcr + add x4, x2, #CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(DBGWVR0_EL1) + save_debug dbgwvr + + mrs x21, mdccint_el1 + str x21, [x2, #CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(MDCCINT_EL1)] ret +/* Restore debug state */ __restore_debug: - restore_debug + // x0: base address for cpu context + // x2: ptr to current CPU context + // x4/x5: trashedand you missed these comments too, basically same stuff, but why was it 'cpu' here and not 'vcpu' like above?
Again we use the functions both for restoring host and vcpu debug context.
note again, that you're explicitly touching x24, xx25, and x26 here as well, so shouldn't they be listed as trashed?quoted
+ + mrs x26, id_aa64dfr0_el1 + ubfx x24, x26, #12, #4 // Extract BRPs + ubfx x25, x26, #20, #4 // Extract WRPs + mov w26, #15 + sub w24, w26, w24 // How many BPs to skip + sub w25, w26, w25 // How many WPs to skip + + mov x5, x24 + add x4, x2, #CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(DBGBCR0_EL1) + restore_debug dbgbcr + add x4, x2, #CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(DBGBVR0_EL1) + restore_debug dbgbvr + + mov x5, x25 + add x4, x2, #CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(DBGWCR0_EL1) + restore_debug dbgwcr + add x4, x2, #CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(DBGWVR0_EL1) + restore_debug dbgwvr + + ldr x21, [x2, #CPU_SYSREG_OFFSET(MDCCINT_EL1)] + msr mdccint_el1, x21 + ret __save_fpsimd:Thanks, -Christoffer
-- Alex Benn?e