[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56A64F53.4000201@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:37:39 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] arm64: Virtualization Host Extension support
On 25/01/16 16:26, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 03:53:34PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> ARMv8.1 comes with the "Virtualization Host Extension" (VHE for
>> short), which enables simpler support of Type-2 hypervisors.
>>
>> This extension allows the kernel to directly run at EL2, and
>> significantly reduces the number of system registers shared between
>> host and guest, reducing the overhead of virtualization.
>>
>> In order to have the same kernel binary running on all versions of the
>> architecture, this series makes heavy use of runtime code patching.
>>
>> The first 20 patches massage the KVM code to deal with VHE and enable
>> Linux to run at EL2. The last patch catches an ugly case when VHE
>> capable CPUs are paired with some of their less capable siblings. This
>> should never happen, but hey...
>>
>> I have deliberately left out some of the more "advanced"
>> optimizations, as they are likely to distract the reviewer from the
>> core infrastructure, which is what I care about at the moment.
>>
>> A few things to note:
>>
>> - Given that the code has been almost entierely rewritten, I've
>> dropped all Acks from the new patches
>>
>> - GDB is currently busted on VHE systems, as it checks for version 6
>> on the debug architecture, while VHE is version 7. The binutils
>> people are on the case.
>
> [...]
>
>> arch/arm/include/asm/virt.h | 5 ++
>> arch/arm/kvm/arm.c | 151 +++++++++++++++++++------------
>> arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c | 7 ++
>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 13 +++
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 3 +-
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h | 1 +
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h | 3 +
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h | 34 ++++++-
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h | 27 ++++++
>> arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 3 -
>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 15 +++-
>> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S | 51 ++++++++++-
>> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 3 +
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp-init.S | 18 +---
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 7 ++
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/entry.S | 6 ++
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S | 107 +++++++---------------
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 170 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/sysreg-sr.c | 147 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/timer-sr.c | 10 +--
>> drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 96 ++++++++++++--------
>> 22 files changed, 724 insertions(+), 272 deletions(-)
>
> Have you tried hw_breakpoint/perf/ptrace with these changes? I was under
> the impression that the debug architecture was aware of E2H and did need
> some changes made. I know you say that GDB is broken anyway, but we should
> check that the kernel does the right thing if userspace pokes it the
> right way.
I did use HW breakpoints on the model by hacking the host kernel to
return Debug Version 6 instead of 7, and things seem to work as
expected. strace also works out of the box.
As for perf, did you have something precise in mind?
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists