On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 09:58:08AM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 10:52 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 02:35:52PM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > What's the point of doing this in the first place? The implementation of
> > > > kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() is populating PMCR_EL0.N using the VM-scoped value.
> > > >
> > > I guess originally the change replaced read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) with
> > > kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr(vcpu) to maintain consistency with others.
> > > But if you and Sebastian feel that it's an overkill and directly
> > > getting the value via vcpu->kvm->arch.pmcr_n is more readable, I'm
> > > happy to make the change.
> >
> > No, I'd rather you delete the line where PMCR_EL0.N altogether.
> > reset_pmcr() tries to initialize the field, but your
> > kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() winds up replacing it with pmcr_n.
> >
> I didn't get this comment. We still do initialize pmcr, but using the
> pmcr.n read via kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() instead of the actual system
> register.
You have two bits of code trying to do the exact same thing:
1) reset_pmcr() initializes __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) with the N
field set up.
2) kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() takes whatever is in __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0),
*masks out* the N field and re-initializes it with vcpu->kvm->arch.pmcr_n
Why do you need (1) if you do (2)?
--
Thanks,
Oliver
