| Message ID | 1432806186-27993-1-git-send-email-alex.bennee@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: > The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state > before entry into the hypervisor code. be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. > In the case of guest state it > could be in either el0 or el1. true > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S > index d755922..1940a4c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S > @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ > stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] > > mrs x19, sp_el0 > - mrs x20, elr_el2 // EL1 PC > - mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate > + mrs x20, elr_el2 // PC before hyp entry > + mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry > > stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] > str x21, [x3, #112] > @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ > ldr x21, [x3, #16] > > msr sp_el0, x19 > - msr elr_el2, x20 // EL1 PC > - msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate > + msr elr_el2, x20 // PC to restore > + msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when reading this kind of stuff. Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. Marc? -Christoffer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >> The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state >> before entry into the hypervisor code. > > be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the > hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. > >> In the case of guest state it >> could be in either el0 or el1. > > true > >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >> --- >> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 ++++---- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >> index d755922..1940a4c 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >> @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ >> stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] >> >> mrs x19, sp_el0 >> - mrs x20, elr_el2 // EL1 PC >> - mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate >> + mrs x20, elr_el2 // PC before hyp entry >> + mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry >> >> stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] >> str x21, [x3, #112] >> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ >> ldr x21, [x3, #16] >> >> msr sp_el0, x19 >> - msr elr_el2, x20 // EL1 PC >> - msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate >> + msr elr_el2, x20 // PC to restore >> + msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore > > I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. > > I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one > should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when > reading this kind of stuff. > > Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. > > Marc? While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model. As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e: mrs x20, elr_el2 // Guest PC mrs x21, spsr_el2 // Guest pstate (and the same for the exception return). The "before hyp entry" and "to restore" are not really useful (all the registers we are saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest registers. Would this address your concerns? Thanks, M.
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> writes: > On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote: >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state >>> before entry into the hypervisor code. >> >> be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the >> hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. "before entry into EL2." >> >>> In the case of guest state it >>> could be in either el0 or el1. >> >> true >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 ++++---- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>> index d755922..1940a4c 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>> @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ >>> stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] >>> >>> mrs x19, sp_el0 >>> - mrs x20, elr_el2 // EL1 PC >>> - mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate >>> + mrs x20, elr_el2 // PC before hyp entry >>> + mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry >>> >>> stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] >>> str x21, [x3, #112] >>> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ >>> ldr x21, [x3, #16] >>> >>> msr sp_el0, x19 >>> - msr elr_el2, x20 // EL1 PC >>> - msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate >>> + msr elr_el2, x20 // PC to restore >>> + msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore >> >> I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. >> >> I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one >> should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when >> reading this kind of stuff. >> >> Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. >> >> Marc? > > While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the > code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some > value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of > code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model. > > As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that > clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e: > > mrs x20, elr_el2 // Guest PC > mrs x21, spsr_el2 // Guest pstate > > (and the same for the exception return). The "before hyp entry" and "to > restore" are not really useful (all the registers we are > saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey > here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest > registers. Which would be great it we were. However the code is used to save/restore the host context as well as the guest context hence my weasely words. > > Would this address your concerns? > > Thanks, > > M.
On 04/06/15 11:20, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> writes: > >> On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote: >>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>> The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state >>>> before entry into the hypervisor code. >>> >>> be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the >>> hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. > > "before entry into EL2." > >>> >>>> In the case of guest state it >>>> could be in either el0 or el1. >>> >>> true >>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 ++++---- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>>> index d755922..1940a4c 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>>> @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ >>>> stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] >>>> >>>> mrs x19, sp_el0 >>>> - mrs x20, elr_el2 // EL1 PC >>>> - mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate >>>> + mrs x20, elr_el2 // PC before hyp entry >>>> + mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry >>>> >>>> stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] >>>> str x21, [x3, #112] >>>> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ >>>> ldr x21, [x3, #16] >>>> >>>> msr sp_el0, x19 >>>> - msr elr_el2, x20 // EL1 PC >>>> - msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate >>>> + msr elr_el2, x20 // PC to restore >>>> + msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore >>> >>> I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. >>> >>> I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one >>> should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when >>> reading this kind of stuff. >>> >>> Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. >>> >>> Marc? >> >> While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the >> code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some >> value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of >> code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model. >> >> As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that >> clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e: >> >> mrs x20, elr_el2 // Guest PC >> mrs x21, spsr_el2 // Guest pstate >> >> (and the same for the exception return). The "before hyp entry" and "to >> restore" are not really useful (all the registers we are >> saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey >> here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest >> registers. > > Which would be great it we were. However the code is used to > save/restore the host context as well as the guest context hence my > weasely words. Gahhh. You're right. I'm spending too much time on the VHE code these days. Guess I'll stick to the weasel words then. Can you respin it with Christoffer's comment addressed? Thanks, M.
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> writes: > On 04/06/15 11:20, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> writes: >> >>> On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>>> The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state >>>>> before entry into the hypervisor code. >>>> >>>> be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the >>>> hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. >> >> "before entry into EL2." >> >>>> >>>>> In the case of guest state it >>>>> could be in either el0 or el1. >>>> >>>> true >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 ++++---- >>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>>>> index d755922..1940a4c 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>>>> @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ >>>>> stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] >>>>> >>>>> mrs x19, sp_el0 >>>>> - mrs x20, elr_el2 // EL1 PC >>>>> - mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate >>>>> + mrs x20, elr_el2 // PC before hyp entry >>>>> + mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry >>>>> >>>>> stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] >>>>> str x21, [x3, #112] >>>>> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ >>>>> ldr x21, [x3, #16] >>>>> >>>>> msr sp_el0, x19 >>>>> - msr elr_el2, x20 // EL1 PC >>>>> - msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate >>>>> + msr elr_el2, x20 // PC to restore >>>>> + msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore >>>> >>>> I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. >>>> >>>> I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one >>>> should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when >>>> reading this kind of stuff. >>>> >>>> Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. >>>> >>>> Marc? >>> >>> While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the >>> code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some >>> value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of >>> code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model. >>> >>> As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that >>> clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e: >>> >>> mrs x20, elr_el2 // Guest PC >>> mrs x21, spsr_el2 // Guest pstate >>> >>> (and the same for the exception return). The "before hyp entry" and "to >>> restore" are not really useful (all the registers we are >>> saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey >>> here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest >>> registers. >> >> Which would be great it we were. However the code is used to >> save/restore the host context as well as the guest context hence my >> weasely words. > > Gahhh. You're right. I'm spending too much time on the VHE code these > days. Guess I'll stick to the weasel words then. Can you respin it with > Christoffer's comment addressed? Sure. Do you want it separated from the guest debug series or will you be happy to take it with it when ready? > > Thanks, > > M.
On 04/06/15 11:46, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> writes: > >> On 04/06/15 11:20, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> >>> Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote: >>>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>>>> The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state >>>>>> before entry into the hypervisor code. >>>>> >>>>> be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the >>>>> hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. >>> >>> "before entry into EL2." >>> >>>>> >>>>>> In the case of guest state it >>>>>> could be in either el0 or el1. >>>>> >>>>> true >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 ++++---- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>>>>> index d755922..1940a4c 100644 >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S >>>>>> @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ >>>>>> stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] >>>>>> >>>>>> mrs x19, sp_el0 >>>>>> - mrs x20, elr_el2 // EL1 PC >>>>>> - mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate >>>>>> + mrs x20, elr_el2 // PC before hyp entry >>>>>> + mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry >>>>>> >>>>>> stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] >>>>>> str x21, [x3, #112] >>>>>> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ >>>>>> ldr x21, [x3, #16] >>>>>> >>>>>> msr sp_el0, x19 >>>>>> - msr elr_el2, x20 // EL1 PC >>>>>> - msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate >>>>>> + msr elr_el2, x20 // PC to restore >>>>>> + msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore >>>>> >>>>> I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. >>>>> >>>>> I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one >>>>> should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when >>>>> reading this kind of stuff. >>>>> >>>>> Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. >>>>> >>>>> Marc? >>>> >>>> While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the >>>> code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some >>>> value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of >>>> code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model. >>>> >>>> As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that >>>> clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e: >>>> >>>> mrs x20, elr_el2 // Guest PC >>>> mrs x21, spsr_el2 // Guest pstate >>>> >>>> (and the same for the exception return). The "before hyp entry" and "to >>>> restore" are not really useful (all the registers we are >>>> saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey >>>> here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest >>>> registers. >>> >>> Which would be great it we were. However the code is used to >>> save/restore the host context as well as the guest context hence my >>> weasely words. >> >> Gahhh. You're right. I'm spending too much time on the VHE code these >> days. Guess I'll stick to the weasel words then. Can you respin it with >> Christoffer's comment addressed? > > Sure. Do you want it separated from the guest debug series or will you > be happy to take it with it when ready? I'll take it now, no need to wait on the whole debug series to fix this. Thanks, M.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S index d755922..1940a4c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] mrs x19, sp_el0 - mrs x20, elr_el2 // EL1 PC - mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate + mrs x20, elr_el2 // PC before hyp entry + mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] str x21, [x3, #112] @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ ldr x21, [x3, #16] msr sp_el0, x19 - msr elr_el2, x20 // EL1 PC - msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate + msr elr_el2, x20 // PC to restore + msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore add x3, x2, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(19) ldp x19, x20, [x3]
The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state before entry into the hypervisor code. In the case of guest state it could be in either el0 or el1. Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> --- arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)