On 15.03.2016 10:43, David Gibson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 08:14:59PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 14.03.2016 17:56, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>>> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>
>>>
>>> We don't give them a KVM reg number to most of the registers yet as no
>>> current KVM version supports HV mode. For DAWR and DAWRX, the KVM reg
>>> number is needed since this register can be set by the guest via the
>>> H_SET_MODE hypercall.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>
>>> [clg: squashed in patch 'ppc: Add KVM numbers to some P8 SPRs' and
>>> changed the commit log with a proposal of Thomas Huth ]
>>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@fr.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> target-ppc/translate_init.c | 140
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 137 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/target-ppc/translate_init.c b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>>> index 6a11b41206e5..43c6e524a6bc 100644
>>> --- a/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>>> +++ b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
>>> @@ -1105,6 +1105,11 @@ static void gen_spr_amr (CPUPPCState *env)
>>> SPR_NOACCESS, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>> &spr_read_generic, &spr_write_generic,
>>> KVM_REG_PPC_UAMOR, 0);
>>> + spr_register_hv(env, SPR_AMOR, "AMOR",
>>> + SPR_NOACCESS, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>> + SPR_NOACCESS, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>> + &spr_read_generic, &spr_write_generic,
>>> + 0);
>>> #endif /* !CONFIG_USER_ONLY */
>>> }
>>> #endif /* TARGET_PPC64 */
>>> @@ -7491,6 +7496,20 @@ static void gen_spr_book3s_dbg(CPUPPCState *env)
>>> KVM_REG_PPC_DABRX, 0x00000000);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void gen_spr_book3s_207_dbg(CPUPPCState *env)
>>> +{
>>> + spr_register_kvm_hv(env, SPR_DAWR, "DAWR",
>>> + SPR_NOACCESS, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>> + SPR_NOACCESS, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>> + &spr_read_generic, &spr_write_generic,
>>> + KVM_REG_PPC_DAWR, 0x00000000);
>>> + spr_register_kvm_hv(env, SPR_DAWRX, "DAWRX",
>>> + SPR_NOACCESS, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>> + SPR_NOACCESS, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>> + &spr_read_generic, &spr_write_generic,
>>> + KVM_REG_PPC_DAWRX, 0x00000000);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static void gen_spr_970_dbg(CPUPPCState *env)
>>> {
>>> /* Breakpoints */
>>> @@ -7683,15 +7702,116 @@ static void gen_spr_power5p_lpar(CPUPPCState *env)
>>> spr_register_kvm(env, SPR_LPCR, "LPCR",
>>> SPR_NOACCESS, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>> &spr_read_generic, &spr_write_generic,
>>> - KVM_REG_PPC_LPCR, 0x00000000);
>>> + KVM_REG_PPC_LPCR, LPCR_LPES0 | LPCR_LPES1);
>>
>> Could we please postpone that hunk to a later, separate patch (after
>> QEMU 2.6 has been released)? It looks like it could maybe cause some
>> trouble with some emulated boards (e.g. there is some code in
>> target-ppc/excp_helper.c for example - which is currently disabled, but
>> I'm not sure whether there are other spots like this somewhere else).
>
> I think this whole patch needs to wait until after 2.6, I'm not seeing
> a good rationale for squeezing it into 2.6 at this stage.Well, this patch registers DAWR and DAWRX registers with KVM - so without this patch, the hardware breakpoints will be lost during migration. I haven't tested it, but I think that when somebody uses hardware breakpoints in gdb in a KVM guest, and migrates it, then the breakpoints won't be triggered anymore after migration without this patch. Cédric, maybe you could send a patch that adds at least the DAWR and DAWRX registers if David does not want to have the full patch for 2.6? Thomas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
