| Message ID | 20200214222658.12946-20-borntraeger@de.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | KVM: s390: Add support for protected VMs | expand |
On 14.02.20 23:26, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > From: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > > Guest registers for protected guests are stored at offset 0x380. > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> > [borntraeger@de.ibm.com: patch merging, splitting, fixing] > Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > --- > arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 +++- > arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 11 +++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h > index ba3364b37159..4fcbb055a565 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h > @@ -343,7 +343,9 @@ struct kvm_s390_itdb { > struct sie_page { > struct kvm_s390_sie_block sie_block; > struct mcck_volatile_info mcck_info; /* 0x0200 */ > - __u8 reserved218[1000]; /* 0x0218 */ > + __u8 reserved218[360]; /* 0x0218 */ > + __u64 pv_grregs[16]; /* 0x0380 */ > + __u8 reserved400[512]; /* 0x0400 */ > struct kvm_s390_itdb itdb; /* 0x0600 */ > __u8 reserved700[2304]; /* 0x0700 */ > }; > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > index a85e50075d99..6ebb0dae5a2e 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > @@ -3999,6 +3999,7 @@ static int vcpu_post_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int exit_reason) > static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > int rc, exit_reason; > + struct sie_page *sie_page = (struct sie_page *)vcpu->arch.sie_block; > > /* > * We try to hold kvm->srcu during most of vcpu_run (except when run- > @@ -4020,8 +4021,18 @@ static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > guest_enter_irqoff(); > __disable_cpu_timer_accounting(vcpu); > local_irq_enable(); > + if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm)) { > + memcpy(sie_page->pv_grregs, > + vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs, > + sizeof(sie_page->pv_grregs)); > + } > exit_reason = sie64a(vcpu->arch.sie_block, > vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs); > + if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm)) { > + memcpy(vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs, > + sie_page->pv_grregs, > + sizeof(sie_page->pv_grregs)); > + } > local_irq_disable(); > __enable_cpu_timer_accounting(vcpu); > guest_exit_irqoff(); > As discussed, I think there is room for improvement in the future (which we could have documented in the patch description), because this is obviously sub-optimal. Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
On 17.02.20 12:01, David Hildenbrand wrote: > As discussed, I think there is room for improvement in the future (which > we could have documented in the patch description), because this is > obviously sub-optimal. > Will use the following as patch description Guest registers for protected guests are stored at offset 0x380. We will copy those to the usual places. Long term we could refactor this or use register access functions. > Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> >
On 2/17/20 12:01 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 14.02.20 23:26, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> From: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >> >> Guest registers for protected guests are stored at offset 0x380. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> >> [borntraeger@de.ibm.com: patch merging, splitting, fixing] >> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> >> --- >> arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 +++- >> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 11 +++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> index ba3364b37159..4fcbb055a565 100644 >> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> @@ -343,7 +343,9 @@ struct kvm_s390_itdb { >> struct sie_page { >> struct kvm_s390_sie_block sie_block; >> struct mcck_volatile_info mcck_info; /* 0x0200 */ >> - __u8 reserved218[1000]; /* 0x0218 */ >> + __u8 reserved218[360]; /* 0x0218 */ >> + __u64 pv_grregs[16]; /* 0x0380 */ >> + __u8 reserved400[512]; /* 0x0400 */ >> struct kvm_s390_itdb itdb; /* 0x0600 */ >> __u8 reserved700[2304]; /* 0x0700 */ >> }; >> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >> index a85e50075d99..6ebb0dae5a2e 100644 >> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >> @@ -3999,6 +3999,7 @@ static int vcpu_post_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int exit_reason) >> static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> { >> int rc, exit_reason; >> + struct sie_page *sie_page = (struct sie_page *)vcpu->arch.sie_block; >> >> /* >> * We try to hold kvm->srcu during most of vcpu_run (except when run- >> @@ -4020,8 +4021,18 @@ static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> guest_enter_irqoff(); >> __disable_cpu_timer_accounting(vcpu); >> local_irq_enable(); >> + if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm)) { >> + memcpy(sie_page->pv_grregs, >> + vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs, >> + sizeof(sie_page->pv_grregs)); >> + } >> exit_reason = sie64a(vcpu->arch.sie_block, >> vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs); >> + if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm)) { >> + memcpy(vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs, >> + sie_page->pv_grregs, >> + sizeof(sie_page->pv_grregs)); >> + } >> local_irq_disable(); >> __enable_cpu_timer_accounting(vcpu); >> guest_exit_irqoff(); >> > > As discussed, I think there is room for improvement in the future (which > we could have documented in the patch description), because this is > obviously sub-optimal. I added it to my KVM TODO list. > > Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Thanks for reviewing this patch and all the others :-)
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h index ba3364b37159..4fcbb055a565 100644 --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h @@ -343,7 +343,9 @@ struct kvm_s390_itdb { struct sie_page { struct kvm_s390_sie_block sie_block; struct mcck_volatile_info mcck_info; /* 0x0200 */ - __u8 reserved218[1000]; /* 0x0218 */ + __u8 reserved218[360]; /* 0x0218 */ + __u64 pv_grregs[16]; /* 0x0380 */ + __u8 reserved400[512]; /* 0x0400 */ struct kvm_s390_itdb itdb; /* 0x0600 */ __u8 reserved700[2304]; /* 0x0700 */ }; diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c index a85e50075d99..6ebb0dae5a2e 100644 --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c @@ -3999,6 +3999,7 @@ static int vcpu_post_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int exit_reason) static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) { int rc, exit_reason; + struct sie_page *sie_page = (struct sie_page *)vcpu->arch.sie_block; /* * We try to hold kvm->srcu during most of vcpu_run (except when run- @@ -4020,8 +4021,18 @@ static int __vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) guest_enter_irqoff(); __disable_cpu_timer_accounting(vcpu); local_irq_enable(); + if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm)) { + memcpy(sie_page->pv_grregs, + vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs, + sizeof(sie_page->pv_grregs)); + } exit_reason = sie64a(vcpu->arch.sie_block, vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs); + if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm)) { + memcpy(vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs, + sie_page->pv_grregs, + sizeof(sie_page->pv_grregs)); + } local_irq_disable(); __enable_cpu_timer_accounting(vcpu); guest_exit_irqoff();