Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com> writes:
> This patch includes the SVE register IDs in the list returned by
> KVM_GET_REG_LIST, as appropriate.
>
> On a non-SVE-enabled vcpu, no extra IDs are added.
>
> On an SVE-enabled vcpu, the appropriate number of slice IDs are
> enumerated for each SVE register, depending on the maximum vector
> length for the vcpu.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com>
> ---
>
> Changes since RFCv1:
>
> * Simplify enumerate_sve_regs() based on Andrew Jones' approach.
>
> * Reg copying loops are inverted for brevity, since the order we
> spit out the regs in doesn't really matter.
>
> (I tried to keep part of my approach to avoid the duplicate logic
> between num_sve_regs() and copy_sve_reg_indices(), but although
> it works in principle, gcc fails to fully collapse the num_regs()
> case... so I gave up. The two functions need to be manually kept
> consistent, but hopefully that's fairly straightforward.)
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> index 320db0f..89eab68 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> @@ -323,6 +323,46 @@ static int get_timer_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const
> struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> return copy_to_user(uaddr, &val, KVM_REG_SIZE(reg->id)) ? -EFAULT : 0;
> }
>
> +static unsigned long num_sve_regs(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + const unsigned int slices = DIV_ROUND_UP(
> + vcpu->arch.sve_max_vl,
> + KVM_REG_SIZE(KVM_REG_ARM64_SVE_ZREG(0, 0)));
Having seen this formulation come up several times now I wonder if there
should be a kernel private define, KVM_SVE_ZREG/PREG_SIZE to avoid this
clumsiness.
You could still use the KVM_REG_SIZE to extract it as I guess this is to
make changes simpler if/when the SVE reg size gets bumped up.
> +
> + if (!vcpu_has_sve(vcpu))
> + return 0;
> +
> + return slices * (SVE_NUM_PREGS + SVE_NUM_ZREGS + 1 /* FFR */);
> +}
> +
> +static int copy_sve_reg_indices(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 __user
> **uind)
> +{
> + const unsigned int slices = DIV_ROUND_UP(
> + vcpu->arch.sve_max_vl,
> + KVM_REG_SIZE(KVM_REG_ARM64_SVE_ZREG(0, 0)));
> + unsigned int i, n;
> +
> + if (!vcpu_has_sve(vcpu))
> + return 0;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < slices; i++) {
> + for (n = 0; n < SVE_NUM_ZREGS; n++) {
> + if (put_user(KVM_REG_ARM64_SVE_ZREG(n, i), (*uind)++))
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> +
> + for (n = 0; n < SVE_NUM_PREGS; n++) {
> + if (put_user(KVM_REG_ARM64_SVE_PREG(n, i), (*uind)++))
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> +
> + if (put_user(KVM_REG_ARM64_SVE_FFR(i), (*uind)++))
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * kvm_arm_num_regs - how many registers do we present via KVM_GET_ONE_REG
> *
> @@ -333,6 +373,7 @@ unsigned long kvm_arm_num_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> unsigned long res = 0;
>
> res += num_core_regs();
> + res += num_sve_regs(vcpu);
> res += kvm_arm_num_sys_reg_descs(vcpu);
> res += kvm_arm_get_fw_num_regs(vcpu);
> res += NUM_TIMER_REGS;
> @@ -357,6 +398,10 @@ int kvm_arm_copy_reg_indices(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64
> __user *uindices)
> uindices++;
> }
>
> + ret = copy_sve_reg_indices(vcpu, &uindices);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> ret = kvm_arm_copy_fw_reg_indices(vcpu, uindices);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
Otherwise:
Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org>
--
Alex Bennée
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
