On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 11:21:27 +0000
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> instead of having huge jump tables for function selection,
s/instead/Instead/
> lets use normal switch/case statements for the instruction
s/lets/let's/
> handlers in intercept.c We can now also get rid of
> intercept_handler_t.
>
> bloat-o-meter output:
> add/remove: 0/1 grow/shrink: 1/0 up/down: 280/-2048 (-1768)
> Function old new delta
> kvm_handle_sie_intercept 1530 1810 +280
> instruction_handlers 2048 - -2048
> Total: Before=5227, After=3459, chg -33.82%
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h | 2 --
> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> @@ -129,16 +113,34 @@ static int handle_validity(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> static int handle_instruction(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> - intercept_handler_t handler;
> -
> - vcpu->stat.exit_instruction++;
> - trace_kvm_s390_intercept_instruction(vcpu,
> - vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipa,
> - vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipb);
Is dropping the tracing intentional?
> - handler = instruction_handlers[vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipa >> 8];
> - if (handler)
> - return handler(vcpu);
> - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + switch (vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipa >> 8) {
> + case 0x01:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_01(vcpu);
> + case 0x82:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_lpsw(vcpu);
> + case 0x83:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_diag(vcpu);
> + case 0xaa:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_aa(vcpu);
> + case 0xae:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_sigp(vcpu);
> + case 0xb2:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_b2(vcpu);
> + case 0xb6:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_stctl(vcpu);
> + case 0xb7:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_lctl(vcpu);
> + case 0xb9:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_b9(vcpu);
> + case 0xe3:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_e3(vcpu);
> + case 0xe5:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_e5(vcpu);
> + case 0xeb:
> + return kvm_s390_handle_eb(vcpu);
> + default:
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> }
>
Else, looks good.
