On 05.11.2009, at 01:53, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
+ case OP_31_XOP_EIOIO:
+ break;
Have you always executed an eieio or sync when you get here, or
do you just not allow direct access to I/O devices? Other context
synchronising insns are not enough, they do not broadcast on the
bus.
There is no device passthrough yet :-). It's theoretically
possible, but nothing for it is implemented so far.
You could just always do an eieio here, it's not expensive at all
compared to the emulation trap itself.
However -- eieio is a Book II insn, it will never trap anyway!
Don't all 31 ops trap? I'm pretty sure I added the emulation because I
saw the trap.
+ case OP_31_XOP_DCBZ:
+ {
+ ulong rb = vcpu->arch.gpr[get_rb(inst)];
+ ulong ra = 0;
+ ulong addr;
+ u32 zeros[8] = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
+
+ if (get_ra(inst))
+ ra = vcpu->arch.gpr[get_ra(inst)];
+
+ addr = (ra + rb) & ~31ULL;
+ if (!(vcpu->arch.msr & MSR_SF))
+ addr &= 0xffffffff;
+
+ if (kvmppc_st(vcpu, addr, 32, zeros)) {
DCBZ zeroes out a cache line, not 32 bytes; except on 970, where
there
are HID bits to make it work on 32 bytes only, and an extra DCBZL
insn
that always clears a full cache line (128 bytes).
Yes. We only come here when we patched the dcbz opcodes to invalid
instructions
Ah yes, I forgot. Could you rename it to OP_31_XOP_FAKE_32BIT_DCBZ
or such?
Good idea.
because cache line size of target == 32.
On 970 with MSR_HV = 0 we actually use the dcbz 32-bytes mode.
Admittedly though, this could be a lot more clever.
+ /* guest HID5 set can change is_dcbz32 */
+ if (vcpu->arch.mmu.is_dcbz32(vcpu) &&
+ (mfmsr() & MSR_HV))
+ vcpu->arch.hflags |= BOOK3S_HFLAG_DCBZ32;
+ break;
Wait, does this mean you allow other HID writes when MSR[HV] isn't
set? All HIDs (and many other SPRs) cannot be read or written in
supervisor mode.
When we're running in MSR_HV=0 mode on a 970 we can use the 32 byte
dcbz HID flag. So all we need to do is tell our entry/exit code to
set this bit.
Which patch contains that entry/exit code?
That's patch 7 / 27.
+ /* Some guests may need to have dcbz set to 32 byte length.
+ *
+ * Usually we ensure that by patching the guest's instructions
+ * to trap on dcbz and emulate it in the hypervisor.
+ *
+ * If we can, we should tell the CPU to use 32 byte dcbz though,
+ * because that's a lot faster.
+ */
+
+ ld r3, VCPU_HFLAGS(r4)
+ rldicl. r3, r3, 0, 63 /* CR = ((r3 & 1) == 0) */
+ beq no_dcbz32_on
+
+ mfspr r3,SPRN_HID5
+ ori r3, r3, 0x80 /* XXX HID5_dcbz32 = 0x80 */
+ mtspr SPRN_HID5,r3
+
+no_dcbz32_on:
If we're on 970 on a hypervisor or on a non-970 though we can't use
the HID5 bit, so we need to binary patch the opcodes.
So in order to emulate real 970 behavior, we need to be able to
emulate that HID5 bit too! That's what this chunk of code does - it
basically sets us in dcbz32 mode when allowed on 970 guests.
But when MSR[HV]=0 and MSR[PR]=0, mtspr to a hypervisor resource
will not trap but be silently ignored. Sorry for not being more
clear.
...Oh. You run your guest as MSR[PR]=1 anyway! Tricky.
Yeah, the guest is always running in PR=1, so all HV checks are for
the host. Usually we run in HV=1 on the host, because IBM doesn't sell
machines that have HV=0 accessible for mortals :-).
I'll address your comments in a follow-up patch once the stuff is
merged.
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
