On Tuesday 12 August 2014 05:45 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 12.08.14 13:35, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: >> On Tuesday 12 August 2014 04:49 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> On 12.08.14 07:17, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: >>>> On Monday 11 August 2014 02:45 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> On 11.08.14 10:51, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 09:26 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c >>>>>>>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c >>>>>>>> index da86d9b..d95014e 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c >>>>>>> This should be book3s_emulate.c. >>>>>> Any reason we can't make that 00dddd00 opcode as breakpoint common to >>>>>> all powerpc variants ? >>>>> I can't think of a good reason. We use a hypercall on booke (which >>>>> traps >>>>> into an illegal instruction for pr) today, but I don't think it has to >>>>> be that way. >>>>> >>>>> Given that the user space API allows us to change it dynamically, >>>>> there >>>>> should be nothing blocking us from going with 00dddd00 always. >>>>> >>>> Kindly correct me if i am wrong. So we can still have a common code in >>>> emulate.c to set the env for both HV and pr incase of illegal >>>> instruction (i will rebase latest src). But suggestion here to use >>>> 00dddd00, in that case current path in embed is kvmppc_handle_exit >>>> (booke.c) -> BOOKE_INTERRUPT_HV_PRIV -> emulation_exit -> >>>> kvmppc_emulate_instruction, will change to kvmppc_handle_exit (booke.c) >>>> -> BOOKE_INTERRUPT_PROGRAM -> if debug instr call emulation_exit else >>>> send to guest? >>> I can't follow your description above. >>> >> My bad. >> >>> With the latest git version HV KVM does not include emulate.c anymore. >>> >>> Also, it would make a lot of sense of have the same soft breakpoint >>> instruction across all ppc targets, so it would make sense to change it >>> to 0x00dddd00 for booke as well. >>> >> Got it. Was describing the current control flow with respect to booke >> and where changes needed (for same software breakpoint inst). This is >> for my understanding and wanted verify. >> >> kvmppc_handle_exit(booke.c) >> -> BOOKE_INTERRUPT_HV_PRIV >> -> emulation_exit >> ->kvmppc_emulate_instruction >> >> Incase of using the same software breakpoint instruction (0x00dddd00), >> then we need to add code in booke something like this >> >> kvmppc_handle_exit (booke.c) >> -> BOOKE_INTERRUPT_PROGRAM >> -> if debug instr >> ->emulation_exit >> else >> ->send to guest? > > Bleks. I see your point. I guess you need something like this for booke: > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > index 074b7fc..1fdeee0 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > @@ -876,6 +876,11 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run *run, struct > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_HV_PRIV: > emulated = kvmppc_get_last_inst(vcpu, false, &last_inst); > break; > + case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_PROGRAM: > + /* SW breakpoints arrive as illegal instructions on HV */ > + if (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP) > + emulated = kvmppc_get_last_inst(vcpu, false, &last_inst); > + break; > default: > break; > } > @@ -953,7 +958,8 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run *run, struct > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > break; > > case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_PROGRAM: > - if (vcpu->arch.shared->msr & (MSR_PR | MSR_GS)) { > + if ((vcpu->arch.shared->msr & (MSR_PR | MSR_GS)) && > + (last_inst != KVMPPC_INST_SOFT_BREAKPOINT)) { > /* > * Program traps generated by user-level software must > * be handled by the guest kernel. > > > Ok make sense. Regards Maddy >> >>> Basically you would have handling code in emulate.c and book3s_hv.c at >>> the end of the day. >>> >> Yes. Will resend the patch with updated code. > > Thanks, > > > Alex > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html