Re: KVM and variable-endianness guest CPUs

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

 



On 22 January 2014 22:47, Victor Kamensky <victor.kamensky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You deleted my example, but I need it again:
> Consider the following ARM code snippets:
>
> setend le
> mov r1, #0x04030201
> str r1, [r0]
>
> and
>
> setend be
> mov r1, #0x01020304
> str r1, [r0]
>
> Just for LE host case basically you are saying that if guest
> issues 4 bytes store
> instruction for CPU core register and CPSR E bit is off,
> mmio.data[0] would contain LSB of integer from this CPU core
> register. I don't understand your bus endianity thing, but I do
> understand LSB of integer in core CPU register. Do we agree
> that in above example in second case when BE access is
> on (E bit is on), it is the exactly the same memory transaction
> but it data[0] = 0x1 is MSB of integer in CPU core register (still the
> same LE host case)?

Yes, this is true both if we define mmio.data[] as "always
little endian" and if we define it as "host kernel endianness",
since you've specified an LE host here.

(The kernel has to byte swap if CPSR.E is set, because
it has to emulate the byte-lane-swap the CPU hardware
does internally before register data goes out to the bus.)

> Consider above big endian case (setend be) example,
> but now running in BE KVM host. 0x4 is LSB of CPU
> core register in this case.

Yes. In this case if we are using the "mmio.data is host
kernel endianness" definition then mmio.data[0] should be
0x01 (the MSB of the 32 bit data value). (Notice that the
BE host kernel can actually just behave exactly like the LE
one: byteswap 32 bit value from guest register if guest
CPSR.E is set, then do a 32-bit store of the 32 bit word
into mmio.data[].)

>> Defining that mmio.data[] is always little-endian would
>> be a valid definition of an API if we were doing it from
>> scratch. It has the unfortunate property that it would
>> completely break the existing PPC BE setups, which
>> don't define it that way, so it is a non-starter.
>
> I believe, but I need to check, that PPC BE setup actually
> acts as the second case in above example  If we have PPC
> BE guest executing the following instructions:
>
> lis     r1,0x102
> ori     r1,r1,0x304
> stw    r1,0(r0)
>
> after first two instructions r1 would contain 0x01020304.
> IMHO It exactly corresponds to above my ARM second case -
> BE guest when it runs under ARM BE KVM host. I believe
> that mmio.data[] in PPC BE case would be {0x1, 0x2, 0x3, 0x4}.

Yes, assuming a BE PPC host kernel (which is the usual
arrangement).

> But according to you data[0] must be 0x4 in BE host case

Er, no. The data here is 0x01020304, so for a BE host
data[0] is the big end, ie 0x1. It would only be 0x4 if
mmio.data[] were LE always (or if you were running
your BE PPC guest on an LE PPC host, which I don't
think is supported currently).

thanks
-- PMM
--
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




[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