Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: fix misleading comments in save/restore
On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state before entry into the hypervisor code. be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. In the case of guest state it could be in either el0 or el1. true Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée alex.ben...@linaro.org --- arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S index d755922..1940a4c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] mrs x19, sp_el0 -mrs x20, elr_el2// EL1 PC -mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate +mrs x20, elr_el2// PC before hyp entry +mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] str x21, [x3, #112] @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ ldr x21, [x3, #16] msr sp_el0, x19 -msr elr_el2, x20// EL1 PC -msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate +msr elr_el2, x20// PC to restore +msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when reading this kind of stuff. Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. Marc? While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model. As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e: mrs x20, elr_el2// Guest PC mrs x21, spsr_el2 // Guest pstate (and the same for the exception return). The before hyp entry and to restore are not really useful (all the registers we are saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest registers. Would this address your concerns? Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: fix misleading comments in save/restore
On 04/06/15 11:20, Alex Bennée wrote: Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com writes: On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state before entry into the hypervisor code. be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. before entry into EL2. In the case of guest state it could be in either el0 or el1. true Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée alex.ben...@linaro.org --- arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S index d755922..1940a4c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] mrs x19, sp_el0 - mrs x20, elr_el2// EL1 PC - mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate + mrs x20, elr_el2// PC before hyp entry + mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] str x21, [x3, #112] @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ ldr x21, [x3, #16] msr sp_el0, x19 - msr elr_el2, x20// EL1 PC - msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate + msr elr_el2, x20// PC to restore + msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when reading this kind of stuff. Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. Marc? While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model. As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e: mrs x20, elr_el2// Guest PC mrs x21, spsr_el2 // Guest pstate (and the same for the exception return). The before hyp entry and to restore are not really useful (all the registers we are saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest registers. Which would be great it we were. However the code is used to save/restore the host context as well as the guest context hence my weasely words. Gahhh. You're right. I'm spending too much time on the VHE code these days. Guess I'll stick to the weasel words then. Can you respin it with Christoffer's comment addressed? Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: fix misleading comments in save/restore
Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com writes: On 04/06/15 11:20, Alex Bennée wrote: Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com writes: On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state before entry into the hypervisor code. be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. before entry into EL2. In the case of guest state it could be in either el0 or el1. true Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée alex.ben...@linaro.org --- arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S index d755922..1940a4c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] mrs x19, sp_el0 - mrs x20, elr_el2// EL1 PC - mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate + mrs x20, elr_el2// PC before hyp entry + mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] str x21, [x3, #112] @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ ldr x21, [x3, #16] msr sp_el0, x19 - msr elr_el2, x20// EL1 PC - msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate + msr elr_el2, x20// PC to restore + msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when reading this kind of stuff. Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. Marc? While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model. As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e: mrs x20, elr_el2// Guest PC mrs x21, spsr_el2 // Guest pstate (and the same for the exception return). The before hyp entry and to restore are not really useful (all the registers we are saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest registers. Which would be great it we were. However the code is used to save/restore the host context as well as the guest context hence my weasely words. Gahhh. You're right. I'm spending too much time on the VHE code these days. Guess I'll stick to the weasel words then. Can you respin it with Christoffer's comment addressed? Sure. Do you want it separated from the guest debug series or will you be happy to take it with it when ready? Thanks, M. -- Alex Bennée -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: fix misleading comments in save/restore
On 04/06/15 11:46, Alex Bennée wrote: Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com writes: On 04/06/15 11:20, Alex Bennée wrote: Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com writes: On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state before entry into the hypervisor code. be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. before entry into EL2. In the case of guest state it could be in either el0 or el1. true Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée alex.ben...@linaro.org --- arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S index d755922..1940a4c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] mrs x19, sp_el0 -mrs x20, elr_el2// EL1 PC -mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate +mrs x20, elr_el2// PC before hyp entry +mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] str x21, [x3, #112] @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ ldr x21, [x3, #16] msr sp_el0, x19 -msr elr_el2, x20// EL1 PC -msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate +msr elr_el2, x20// PC to restore +msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when reading this kind of stuff. Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. Marc? While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model. As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e: mrs x20, elr_el2// Guest PC mrs x21, spsr_el2 // Guest pstate (and the same for the exception return). The before hyp entry and to restore are not really useful (all the registers we are saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest registers. Which would be great it we were. However the code is used to save/restore the host context as well as the guest context hence my weasely words. Gahhh. You're right. I'm spending too much time on the VHE code these days. Guess I'll stick to the weasel words then. Can you respin it with Christoffer's comment addressed? Sure. Do you want it separated from the guest debug series or will you be happy to take it with it when ready? I'll take it now, no need to wait on the whole debug series to fix this. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: fix misleading comments in save/restore
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state before entry into the hypervisor code. be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. In the case of guest state it could be in either el0 or el1. true Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée alex.ben...@linaro.org --- arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S index d755922..1940a4c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] mrs x19, sp_el0 - mrs x20, elr_el2// EL1 PC - mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate + mrs x20, elr_el2// PC before hyp entry + mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] str x21, [x3, #112] @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ ldr x21, [x3, #16] msr sp_el0, x19 - msr elr_el2, x20// EL1 PC - msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate + msr elr_el2, x20// PC to restore + msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when reading this kind of stuff. Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. Marc? -Christoffer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: fix misleading comments in save/restore
Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com writes: On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state before entry into the hypervisor code. be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2. before entry into EL2. In the case of guest state it could be in either el0 or el1. true Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée alex.ben...@linaro.org --- arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S index d755922..1940a4c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ stp x29, lr, [x3, #80] mrs x19, sp_el0 - mrs x20, elr_el2// EL1 PC - mrs x21, spsr_el2 // EL1 pstate + mrs x20, elr_el2// PC before hyp entry + mrs x21, spsr_el2 // pstate before hyp entry stp x19, x20, [x3, #96] str x21, [x3, #112] @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ ldr x21, [x3, #16] msr sp_el0, x19 - msr elr_el2, x20// EL1 PC - msr spsr_el2, x21 // EL1 pstate + msr elr_el2, x20// PC to restore + msr spsr_el2, x21 // pstate to restore I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here. I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when reading this kind of stuff. Meh, I'm not sure. Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing. Marc? While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model. As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e: mrs x20, elr_el2// Guest PC mrs x21, spsr_el2 // Guest pstate (and the same for the exception return). The before hyp entry and to restore are not really useful (all the registers we are saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest registers. Which would be great it we were. However the code is used to save/restore the host context as well as the guest context hence my weasely words. Would this address your concerns? Thanks, M. -- Alex Bennée -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
