Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] kvm: x86: Rename KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD to KVM_DEBUGREG_NEED_RELOAD

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 4/27/2020 10:37 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 09:48:17AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 24/04/20 22:21, Peter Xu wrote:
But then shouldn't DIRTY be set as long as KVM_DEBUGREG_BP_ENABLED is set every
time before vmenter?  Then it'll somehow go back to switch_db_regs, iiuc...

IIUC RELOAD actually wants to say "reload only for this iteration", that's why
it's cleared after each reload.  So maybe...  RELOAD_ONCE?

(Btw, do we have debug regs tests somewhere no matter inside guest or with
  KVM_SET_GUEST_DEBUG?)

What about KVM_DEBUGREG_EFF_DB_DIRTY?

The problem is iiuc we always reload eff_db[] no matter which bit in
switch_db_regs is set, so this may still not clearly identify this bit from the
rest of the two bits...

Actually I think eff_db[] is a bit confusing here in that it can be either the
host specified dbreg values or the guest specified depends on the dynamic value
of KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP.

I am thinking maybe it's clearer to have host_db[] and guest_db[], then only
until vmenter do we load either of them by:

host_db[] is somewhat misleading, how about user_db[] (just like user_fpu)

   if (KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP)
     load(host_db[]);
   else
     load(gueet_db[]);

Then each db[] will be very clear on what's the data is about.  And we don't
need to check KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP every time when accessing eff_db[].





[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux