On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 02:45:35PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On 06/10/17 12:39, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >> The system state of KVM when using userspace emulation is not complete
> >> until we return into KVM_RUN. To handle mmio related updates we wait
> >> until they have been committed and then schedule our KVM_EXIT_DEBUG.
> >>
> >> I've introduced a new function kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug() to wrap up
> >> the differences between arm/arm64 which is currently null for arm.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
> >> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 9 +++------
> >> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +-
> >> virt/kvm/arm/mmio.c | 3 ++-
> >> 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> index 4a879f6ff13b..aec943f6d123 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> @@ -285,6 +285,8 @@ static inline void kvm_arm_init_debug(void) {}
> >> static inline void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> >> static inline void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> >> static inline void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> >> +static inline int kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> + struct kvm_run *run) {}
> >>
> >
> > This function should return 1.
>
> So I did ponder making this a bool, returning true if we need to exit
> and testing in v/k/a/arm.c exit leg rather than in the mmio handler.
>
> At the moment it mirrors the existing exit logic which follows -1 err, 0
> return, >0 handled. But as I mentioned in the cover letter this fell
> down a bit when dealing with the mmio case.
>
> >
> >> int kvm_arm_vcpu_arch_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> struct kvm_device_attr *attr);
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> index e923b58606e2..fa67d21662f6 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> @@ -369,6 +369,7 @@ void kvm_arm_init_debug(void);
> >> void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> +int kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run);
> >
> > I feel the name could be a little bit more explicit:
> >
> > kvm_arm_trap_need_step_debug, kvm_arm_trap_step_return_debug,
> > kvm_arm_trap_need_return_debug.
>
> I wanted to keep the debug suffix so that's fine although I'm not so
> sure trap is correct because on the tail end of mmio emulation are we
> still trapping?
>
> Maybe kvm_arm_step_emulated_debug?
I think you should name it:
kvm_arm_should_complete_emulated_instr_debug() - or something better -
and call it directly from kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run, so that it becomes:
ret = kvm_handle_mmio_return(vcpu, vcpu->run);
if (ret)
return ret;
ret = kvm_arm_should_complete_emulated_instr_debug(vcpu);
if (ret)
return ret;
>
> > At least, I think it would be nice that the name reflect that this
> > check is meant for emulated instructions.
> >
> > Otherwise:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks,
>
>
Thanks,
-Christoffer
