On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:23:21AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Christoffer Dall <cdall@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > 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 -
>
> Naming is hard :-/
>
Yeah, my suggestion was half-way a joke, but as Julien said, it should
reflect what it's trying to tell you as concretely as possible.
> > 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;
>
> This runs into the problem of slightly different ret semantics for here
> and in handle_exit. Maybe just having a bool response and:
>
> if (kvm_arm_should_complete_emulated_instr_debug(vcpu))
> return 0;
Ah yeah, my example was broken.
>
> And then in handle_exit:
>
> if (handled == 1 && kvm_arm_should_complete_emulated_instr_debug(vcpu))
> return 0;
> else
> return handled;
>
Yes, looks good, assuming we can find a better name.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
