[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56AF5ED8.7010303@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 13:34:16 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/21] arm64: KVM: VHE: Patch out use of HVC
On 01/02/16 13:16, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 03:53:40PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> With VHE, the host never issues an HVC instruction to get into the
>> KVM code, as we can simply branch there.
>>
>> Use runtime code patching to simplify things a bit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 7 +++++++
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>> index 0ccdcbb..0689a74 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>> @@ -17,7 +17,9 @@
>>
>> #include <linux/linkage.h>
>>
>> +#include <asm/alternative.h>
>> #include <asm/assembler.h>
>> +#include <asm/cpufeature.h>
>>
>> /*
>> * u64 kvm_call_hyp(void *hypfn, ...);
>> @@ -38,6 +40,11 @@
>> * arch/arm64/kernel/hyp_stub.S.
>> */
>> ENTRY(kvm_call_hyp)
>> +alternative_if_not ARM64_HAS_VIRT_HOST_EXTN
>> hvc #0
>> ret
>> +alternative_else
>> + b __vhe_hyp_call
>> + nop
>> +alternative_endif
>> ENDPROC(kvm_call_hyp)
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S
>> index 93e8d983..9e0683f 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S
>> @@ -38,6 +38,32 @@
>> ldp x0, x1, [sp], #16
>> .endm
>>
>> +.macro do_el2_call
>> + /*
>> + * Shuffle the parameters before calling the function
>> + * pointed to in x0. Assumes parameters in x[1,2,3].
>> + */
>> + stp lr, xzr, [sp, #-16]!
>
> remind me why this pair isn't just doing "str" instead of "stp" with the
> xzr ?
Because SP has to be aligned on a 16 bytes boundary at all times.
>
>> + mov lr, x0
>> + mov x0, x1
>> + mov x1, x2
>> + mov x2, x3
>> + blr lr
>> + ldp lr, xzr, [sp], #16
>> +.endm
>> +
>> +ENTRY(__vhe_hyp_call)
>> + do_el2_call
>> + /*
>> + * We used to rely on having an exception return to get
>> + * an implicit isb. In the E2H case, we don't have it anymore.
>> + * rather than changing all the leaf functions, just do it here
>> + * before returning to the rest of the kernel.
>> + */
>
> why is this not the case with an ISB before do_el2_call then?
That's a good point. I guess the safest thing to do would be to add one,
but looking at the various functions we call, I don't see any that could
go wrong by not having a ISB in their prologue.
Or maybe you've identified such a case?
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists