RE: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
-Original Message-
From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Hollis Blanchard
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:30 AM
To: Alexander Graf
Cc: k...@vger.kernel.org; kvm-ppc; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Liu Yu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
index 338baf9..e283e44 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
@@ -82,8 +82,9 @@ static void
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
set_bit(priority, vcpu-arch.pending_exceptions);
}
-void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, ulong flags)
{
+ /* BookE does flags in ESR, so ignore those we get here */
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM);
}
Actually, I think Book E prematurely sets ESR, since it's done before
the program interrupt is actually delivered. Architecturally, I'm not
sure if it's a problem, but philosophically I've always wanted it to
work the way you've just implemented for Book S.
ESR is updated not only by program but by data_tlb, data_storage, etc.
Should we rearrange them all?
Also DEAR has the same situation as ESR.
Should it be updated when we decide to inject interrupt to guest?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm-ppc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
On 21.01.2010, at 09:09, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Hollis Blanchard
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:30 AM
To: Alexander Graf
Cc: k...@vger.kernel.org; kvm-ppc; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Liu Yu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
index 338baf9..e283e44 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
@@ -82,8 +82,9 @@ static void
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
set_bit(priority, vcpu-arch.pending_exceptions);
}
-void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, ulong flags)
{
+ /* BookE does flags in ESR, so ignore those we get here */
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM);
}
Actually, I think Book E prematurely sets ESR, since it's done before
the program interrupt is actually delivered. Architecturally, I'm not
sure if it's a problem, but philosophically I've always wanted it to
work the way you've just implemented for Book S.
ESR is updated not only by program but by data_tlb, data_storage, etc.
Should we rearrange them all?
Also DEAR has the same situation as ESR.
Should it be updated when we decide to inject interrupt to guest?
If that's what the hardware does, then yes. I'm good with taking small steps
though. So if you don't have the time to convert all of the handlers, you can
easily start off with program interrupts.
Alex--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm-ppc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
-Original Message- From: Alexander Graf [mailto:ag...@suse.de] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:08 AM To: Liu Yu-B13201 Cc: Hollis Blanchard; k...@vger.kernel.org; kvm-ppc; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Liu Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly Anyways, since we can't test changes at the moment (Yu, can you?), I'd settle for a comment to the effect that Book E code *should* do this, but doesn't (rather than the comment above that says it's ok). Sure. You mean set the ESR at the moment we inject trap to guest? If it is not urgent, I'll do it later. It's definitely not urgent. In fact, If you could just test patches I send to you I can write it and have you test it :-). That would be nice.:-) But last time I try the top tree, it seemed not work. Maybe I need to find out the reason and fix it first... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm-ppc in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
On 11.01.2010, at 07:58, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
-Original Message-
From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Hollis Blanchard
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:30 AM
To: Alexander Graf
Cc: k...@vger.kernel.org; kvm-ppc; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Liu Yu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
Book3S needs some flags in SRR1 to get to know details
about an interrupt.
One such example is the trap instruction. It tells the
guest kernel that
a program interrupt is due to a trap using a bit in SRR1.
This patch implements above behavior, making WARN_ON behave
like WARN_ON.
... for Book S. It already works properly for Book E,
thankyouverymuch. ;)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
index 338baf9..e283e44 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
@@ -82,8 +82,9 @@ static void
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
set_bit(priority, vcpu-arch.pending_exceptions);
}
-void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, ulong flags)
{
+ /* BookE does flags in ESR, so ignore those we get here */
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM);
}
Actually, I think Book E prematurely sets ESR, since it's done before
the program interrupt is actually delivered. Architecturally, I'm not
sure if it's a problem, but philosophically I've always wanted it to
work the way you've just implemented for Book S.
Anyways, since we can't test changes at the moment (Yu, can you?), I'd
settle for a comment to the effect that Book E code *should* do this,
but doesn't (rather than the comment above that says it's ok).
Sure.
You mean set the ESR at the moment we inject trap to guest?
If it is not urgent, I'll do it later.
It's definitely not urgent. In fact, If you could just test patches I send to
you I can write it and have you test it :-).
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm-ppc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
-Original Message-
From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Hollis Blanchard
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:30 AM
To: Alexander Graf
Cc: k...@vger.kernel.org; kvm-ppc; Benjamin Herrenschmidt; Liu Yu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
Book3S needs some flags in SRR1 to get to know details
about an interrupt.
One such example is the trap instruction. It tells the
guest kernel that
a program interrupt is due to a trap using a bit in SRR1.
This patch implements above behavior, making WARN_ON behave
like WARN_ON.
... for Book S. It already works properly for Book E,
thankyouverymuch. ;)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
index 338baf9..e283e44 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
@@ -82,8 +82,9 @@ static void
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
set_bit(priority, vcpu-arch.pending_exceptions);
}
-void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, ulong flags)
{
+ /* BookE does flags in ESR, so ignore those we get here */
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM);
}
Actually, I think Book E prematurely sets ESR, since it's done before
the program interrupt is actually delivered. Architecturally, I'm not
sure if it's a problem, but philosophically I've always wanted it to
work the way you've just implemented for Book S.
Anyways, since we can't test changes at the moment (Yu, can you?), I'd
settle for a comment to the effect that Book E code *should* do this,
but doesn't (rather than the comment above that says it's ok).
Sure.
You mean set the ESR at the moment we inject trap to guest?
If it is not urgent, I'll do it later.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm-ppc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
On 08.01.2010, at 20:29, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
Book3S needs some flags in SRR1 to get to know details about an interrupt.
One such example is the trap instruction. It tells the guest kernel that
a program interrupt is due to a trap using a bit in SRR1.
This patch implements above behavior, making WARN_ON behave like WARN_ON.
... for Book S. It already works properly for Book E, thankyouverymuch. ;)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
index 338baf9..e283e44 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
@@ -82,8 +82,9 @@ static void kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(struct kvm_vcpu
*vcpu,
set_bit(priority, vcpu-arch.pending_exceptions);
}
-void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, ulong flags)
{
+ /* BookE does flags in ESR, so ignore those we get here */
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM);
}
Actually, I think Book E prematurely sets ESR, since it's done before
the program interrupt is actually delivered. Architecturally, I'm not
sure if it's a problem, but philosophically I've always wanted it to
work the way you've just implemented for Book S.
Anyways, since we can't test changes at the moment (Yu, can you?), I'd
settle for a comment to the effect that Book E code *should* do this,
but doesn't (rather than the comment above that says it's ok).
Hm, can't you just write up a patch that removes the comment I put in, does the
ESR setting in the function and do an #ifdef in emulate.c?
That way we can incrementally improve things. This series is really about
Book3S. Improving BookE should go in a different patch.
Alex--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm-ppc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 08.01.2010, at 20:29, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
Book3S needs some flags in SRR1 to get to know details about an interrupt.
One such example is the trap instruction. It tells the guest kernel that
a program interrupt is due to a trap using a bit in SRR1.
This patch implements above behavior, making WARN_ON behave like WARN_ON.
... for Book S. It already works properly for Book E, thankyouverymuch. ;)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
index 338baf9..e283e44 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
@@ -82,8 +82,9 @@ static void kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(struct kvm_vcpu
*vcpu,
set_bit(priority, vcpu-arch.pending_exceptions);
}
-void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, ulong flags)
{
+ /* BookE does flags in ESR, so ignore those we get here */
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM);
}
Actually, I think Book E prematurely sets ESR, since it's done before
the program interrupt is actually delivered. Architecturally, I'm not
sure if it's a problem, but philosophically I've always wanted it to
work the way you've just implemented for Book S.
Anyways, since we can't test changes at the moment (Yu, can you?), I'd
settle for a comment to the effect that Book E code *should* do this,
but doesn't (rather than the comment above that says it's ok).
Hm, can't you just write up a patch that removes the comment I put in, does
the ESR setting in the function and do an #ifdef in emulate.c?
That way we can incrementally improve things. This series is really about
Book3S. Improving BookE should go in a different patch.
Yes, but I'd rather minimize the behavioral changes as long as we can't test it.
-Hollis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm-ppc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: PPC: Emulate trap SRR1 flags properly
On 08.01.2010, at 20:35, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
On 08.01.2010, at 20:29, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
Book3S needs some flags in SRR1 to get to know details about an interrupt.
One such example is the trap instruction. It tells the guest kernel that
a program interrupt is due to a trap using a bit in SRR1.
This patch implements above behavior, making WARN_ON behave like WARN_ON.
... for Book S. It already works properly for Book E, thankyouverymuch. ;)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
index 338baf9..e283e44 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
@@ -82,8 +82,9 @@ static void kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(struct kvm_vcpu
*vcpu,
set_bit(priority, vcpu-arch.pending_exceptions);
}
-void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+void kvmppc_core_queue_program(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, ulong flags)
{
+ /* BookE does flags in ESR, so ignore those we get here */
kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM);
}
Actually, I think Book E prematurely sets ESR, since it's done before
the program interrupt is actually delivered. Architecturally, I'm not
sure if it's a problem, but philosophically I've always wanted it to
work the way you've just implemented for Book S.
Anyways, since we can't test changes at the moment (Yu, can you?), I'd
settle for a comment to the effect that Book E code *should* do this,
but doesn't (rather than the comment above that says it's ok).
Hm, can't you just write up a patch that removes the comment I put in, does
the ESR setting in the function and do an #ifdef in emulate.c?
That way we can incrementally improve things. This series is really about
Book3S. Improving BookE should go in a different patch.
Yes, but I'd rather minimize the behavioral changes as long as we can't test
it.
Right. That's why the semantics of flags are Book3S specific right now and as
such the comment is correct.
The behavioral change we need to do later is to take the ESR setting into
queue_program, but that should wait until after someone has a board to test
things on again ;-). The reminder that we need to do this is hereby archived in
the mails :).
Alex--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm-ppc in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
