[PATCH v4 13/15] KVM: arm: keep track of guest use of the debug registers
From: Christoffer Dall <hidden>
Date: 2015-09-02 16:01:03
Also in:
kvm, kvmarm
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 09:26:05PM +0800, Zhichao Huang wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
We trap debug register accesses from guest all the time, and read the BCR/WCR to indicate whether the guest has enabled any break/watch points or not. Signed-off-by: Zhichao Huang <redacted> --- arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_asm.h | 2 ++ arch/arm/kvm/coproc.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_asm.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_asm.h index 5b1c3eb..e9e1f0a 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_asm.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_asm.h@@ -65,7 +65,9 @@ #define NR_CP14_REGS 66 /* Number of regs (incl. invalid) */ #define KVM_ARM_DEBUG_HOST_INUSE_SHIFT 0 +#define KVM_ARM_DEBUG_GUEST_INUSE_SHIFT 1 #define KVM_ARM_DEBUG_HOST_INUSE (1 << KVM_ARM_DEBUG_HOST_INUSE_SHIFT) +#define KVM_ARM_DEBUG_GUEST_INUSE (1 << KVM_ARM_DEBUG_GUEST_INUSE_SHIFT) #define ARM_EXCEPTION_RESET 0 #define ARM_EXCEPTION_UNDEFINED 1diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/coproc.c b/arch/arm/kvm/coproc.c index b37afd6..d9dcd28b 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kvm/coproc.c +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/coproc.c@@ -220,7 +220,22 @@ bool access_vm_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, return true; } -static bool trap_debug32(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, +/* Indicate whether the guest has enabled any break/watch points or not. */ +static bool guest_debug_in_use(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) +{ + unsigned int i; + + for (i = 0; i < ARM_MAX_BRP; i++) + if (vcpu->arch.cp14[cp14_DBGBCR0 + i] & 0x1) + return true; + for (i = 0; i < ARM_MAX_WRP; i++) + if (vcpu->arch.cp14[cp14_DBGWCR0 + i] & 0x1) + return true; + + return false; +} + +static bool __trap_debug32(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct coproc_params *p, const struct coproc_reg *r) {@@ -232,6 +247,56 @@ static bool trap_debug32(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, return true; } +/* + * We want to avoid world-switching all the DBG registers all the + * time: + * + * When we are about to run a guest, we have the following cases: + * + * 1) Neither the host nor the guest has configured any [WB]points + * 2) Only the host has configured any [WB]points + * 3) Only the guest has configured any [WB]points + * 4) Both the host and the guest have configured any [WB]points + * + * - In case (1), KVM should enable trapping and swtich the register
switch
+ * state on guest accesses. + * - In cases (2), (3), and (4) we must switch the register state on each + * entry/exit. + * + * For ARMv7, if the CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT is set, ARM_DSCR_MDBGEN + * is always set(ARM64 use it to indicate that debug registers are actively
add space ^
+ * in use).
While I like having the overall explanation of the flow somewhere, I feel this is a strange place to put it. Perhaps there is a more suitable location?
+ * + * - We add a function reading the break/watch control variables directly to + * indicate whether the host has enabled any break/watch points or not. + * We only call the function upon guest entry, after preempt_disable() and + * local_irq_disable(), so there is no race for it.
This paragraph of the commenting doesn't seem to fit with the rest, and didn't we cover this already in a previous patch?
+ * + * - We trap debug register accesses from guest all the time, and read the + * BCR/WCR to indicate whether the guest has enabled any break/watch points + * or not.
do we trap all the time? not if we're switching the state I suppose?
+ *
+ * For this, we can keep track of the host/guest use of debug registers,
+ * and skip the save/restore dance when neither the host nor the guest has
+ * configured any [WB]points.
+ */
+static bool trap_debug32(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
+ const struct coproc_params *p,
+ const struct coproc_reg *r)
+{
+ __trap_debug32(vcpu, p, r);
+
+ if (p->is_write) {
+ if ((vcpu->arch.cp14[r->reg] & 0x1) ||
+ guest_debug_in_use(vcpu))
+ vcpu->arch.debug_flags |= KVM_ARM_DEBUG_GUEST_INUSE;
+ else
+ vcpu->arch.debug_flags &= ~KVM_ARM_DEBUG_GUEST_INUSE;I don't understand this logic, if we are enabling one of the w/b points or if there was already an enabled w/b point, then we set the flag, but if you disable a single one then you clear the flag? It looks to me like you're mixing two approaches here; either read through all the registers whenever you need to know to set the flag or not, or you keep track of this on every read/write of the registers.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ } + + return true; +} + /* DBGIDR (RO) Debug ID */ static bool trap_dbgidr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct coproc_params *p,@@ -419,13 +484,13 @@ static const struct coproc_reg cp15_regs[] = { #define DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR(n) \ /* DBGBVRn */ \ { CRn( 0), CRm((n)), Op1( 0), Op2( 4), is32, \ - trap_debug32, reset_val, (cp14_DBGBVR0 + (n)), 0 }, \ + __trap_debug32, reset_val, (cp14_DBGBVR0 + (n)), 0 }, \ /* DBGBCRn */ \ { CRn( 0), CRm((n)), Op1( 0), Op2( 5), is32, \ trap_debug32, reset_val, (cp14_DBGBCR0 + (n)), 0 }, \ /* DBGWVRn */ \ { CRn( 0), CRm((n)), Op1( 0), Op2( 6), is32, \ - trap_debug32, reset_val, (cp14_DBGWVR0 + (n)), 0 }, \ + __trap_debug32, reset_val, (cp14_DBGWVR0 + (n)), 0 }, \ /* DBGWCRn */ \ { CRn( 0), CRm((n)), Op1( 0), Op2( 7), is32, \ trap_debug32, reset_val, (cp14_DBGWCR0 + (n)), 0 }@@ -462,7 +527,7 @@ static const struct coproc_reg cp14_regs[] = { /* DBGDSAR (64bit) */ { CRn( 0), CRm( 2), Op1( 0), Op2( 0), is64, trap_raz_wi }, /* DBGDSCRext */ - { CRn( 0), CRm( 2), Op1( 0), Op2( 2), is32, trap_debug32, + { CRn( 0), CRm( 2), Op1( 0), Op2( 2), is32, __trap_debug32, reset_val, cp14_DBGDSCRext, 0 }, DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR(2), /* DBGDTRTXext */@@ -474,7 +539,7 @@ static const struct coproc_reg cp14_regs[] = { DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR(5), DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR(6), /* DBGVCR */ - { CRn( 0), CRm( 7), Op1( 0), Op2( 0), is32, trap_debug32 }, + { CRn( 0), CRm( 7), Op1( 0), Op2( 0), is32, __trap_debug32 }, DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR(7), DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR(8), DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR(9),-- 1.7.12.4
So __trap_debug32 is for the non-control registers and trap-debug32 is for the control registers? I think specifically naming the control register function trap_debug_cr would be cleaner in that case. Thanks, -Christoffer