On 30.01.2013, at 14:29, Mihai Caraman wrote:
> Emulate TLBnPS registers which are available in MMU Architecture Version
> (MAV) 2.0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h | 5 +++++
> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c | 10 ++++++++++
> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu.c | 5 +++++
> 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 8a72d59..88fcfe6 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -501,6 +501,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> spinlock_t wdt_lock;
> struct timer_list wdt_timer;
> u32 tlbcfg[4];
> + u32 tlbps[4];
> u32 mmucfg;
> u32 epr;
> struct kvmppc_booke_debug_reg dbg_reg;
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h
> index 41cefd4..b9f76d8 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500.h
> @@ -303,4 +303,9 @@ static inline unsigned int get_tlbmiss_tid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> #define get_tlb_sts(gtlbe) (MAS1_TS)
> #endif /* !BOOKE_HV */
>
> +static inline unsigned int has_mmu_v2(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
bool. Also rename it to "is_..." then.
> +{
> + return ((vcpu->arch.mmucfg & MMUCFG_MAVN) == MMUCFG_MAVN_V2);
> +}
> +
> #endif /* KVM_E500_H */
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c
> index e78f353..5515dc5 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c
> @@ -329,6 +329,16 @@ int kvmppc_core_emulate_mfspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int sprn, ulong *spr_val)
> *spr_val = vcpu->arch.ivor[BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DBELL_CRIT];
> break;
> #endif
> + case SPRN_TLB0PS:
> + if (!has_mmu_v2(vcpu))
> + return EMULATE_FAIL;
> + *spr_val = vcpu->arch.tlbps[0];
> + break;
> + case SPRN_TLB1PS:
> + if (!has_mmu_v2(vcpu))
> + return EMULATE_FAIL;
> + *spr_val = vcpu->arch.tlbps[1];
> + break;
> default:
> emulated = kvmppc_booke_emulate_mfspr(vcpu, sprn, spr_val);
> }
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu.c
> index bb1b2b0..129299a 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu.c
> @@ -794,6 +794,11 @@ int kvmppc_e500_tlb_init(struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500)
> vcpu->arch.tlbcfg[1] |=
> vcpu_e500->gtlb_params[1].ways << TLBnCFG_ASSOC_SHIFT;
>
> + if (has_mmu_v2(vcpu)) {
> + vcpu->arch.tlbps[0] = mfspr(SPRN_TLB0PS);
> + vcpu->arch.tlbps[1] = mfspr(SPRN_TLB1PS);
So I suppose that means that user space doesn't tell us the possible TLB entry sizes through the SW_TLB config? Then we should add them there.
To not break untested code paths, we can still compare if the values user space asks for are identical to what physical hardware does. But eventually we shouldn't care.
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
