Re: [PATCH] kvmppc/booke: Set ESR and DEAR when inject interrupt to guest
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:ag...@suse.de] >> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 7:33 PM >> To: Liu Yu-B13201 >> Cc: hol...@penguinppc.org; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; >> k...@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvmppc/booke: Set ESR and DEAR when >> inject interrupt to guest >> >> >> On 22.01.2010, at 12:27, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org >> >> [mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Graf >> >> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 7:13 PM >> >> To: Liu Yu-B13201 >> >> Cc: hol...@penguinppc.org; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; >> >> k...@vger.kernel.org >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvmppc/booke: Set ESR and DEAR when >> >> inject interrupt to guest >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22.01.2010, at 11:54, Liu Yu wrote: >> >> >> >>> Old method prematurely sets ESR and DEAR. >> >>> Move this part after we decide to inject interrupt, >> >>> and make it more like hardware behave. >> >>> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Liu Yu >> >>> --- >> >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 24 ++-- >> >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c | 2 -- >> >>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >>> >> >>> @@ -286,15 +295,12 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run >> >> *run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >> >>> break; >> >>> >> >>> case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DATA_STORAGE: >> >>> - vcpu->arch.dear = vcpu->arch.fault_dear; >> >>> - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; >> >>> kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, >> >> BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DATA_STORAGE); >> >> >> >> kvmppc_booke_queue_data_storage(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_esr, >> >> vcpu->arch.fault_dear); >> >> >> >>> kvmppc_account_exit(vcpu, DSI_EXITS); >> >>> r = RESUME_GUEST; >> >>> break; >> >>> >> >>> case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_INST_STORAGE: >> >>> - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; >> >>> kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, >> >> BOOKE_IRQPRIO_INST_STORAGE); >> >> >> >> kvmppc_booke_queue_inst_storage(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_esr); >> >> >> > >> > Not sure if this is redundant, as we already have fault_esr. >> > Or should we ignore what hareware is and create a new esr to guest? >> >> On Book3S I take the SRR1 we get from the host as >> "inspiration" of what to pass to the guest as SRR1. I think >> we should definitely be able to inject a fault that we didn't >> get in that exact form from the exit path. >> >> I'm also not sure if something could clobber fault_esr if >> another interrupt takes precedence. Say a #MC. > > No as far as I know. > And if yes, the clobber could as well happen before we copy it. > Hollis, what do you think we should do here? I'm torn, and in some ways it's not that important right now. However, I think it makes sense to add something like "vcpu->queued_esr" as a separate field from vcpu->fault_esr. The use case I'm thinking of is a debugger wanting to invoke guest kernel to provide a translation for an address not currently present in the TLB (i.e. not currently visible to the debugger). -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] kvmppc/booke: Set ESR and DEAR when inject interrupt to guest
> -Original Message- > From: Alexander Graf [mailto:ag...@suse.de] > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 7:33 PM > To: Liu Yu-B13201 > Cc: hol...@penguinppc.org; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; > k...@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvmppc/booke: Set ESR and DEAR when > inject interrupt to guest > > > On 22.01.2010, at 12:27, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote: > > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org > >> [mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Graf > >> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 7:13 PM > >> To: Liu Yu-B13201 > >> Cc: hol...@penguinppc.org; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; > >> k...@vger.kernel.org > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvmppc/booke: Set ESR and DEAR when > >> inject interrupt to guest > >> > >> > >> On 22.01.2010, at 11:54, Liu Yu wrote: > >> > >>> Old method prematurely sets ESR and DEAR. > >>> Move this part after we decide to inject interrupt, > >>> and make it more like hardware behave. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Liu Yu > >>> --- > >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 24 ++-- > >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c |2 -- > >>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> @@ -286,15 +295,12 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run > >> *run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > >>> break; > >>> > >>> case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DATA_STORAGE: > >>> - vcpu->arch.dear = vcpu->arch.fault_dear; > >>> - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; > >>> kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, > >> BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DATA_STORAGE); > >> > >> kvmppc_booke_queue_data_storage(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_esr, > >> vcpu->arch.fault_dear); > >> > >>> kvmppc_account_exit(vcpu, DSI_EXITS); > >>> r = RESUME_GUEST; > >>> break; > >>> > >>> case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_INST_STORAGE: > >>> - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; > >>> kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, > >> BOOKE_IRQPRIO_INST_STORAGE); > >> > >> kvmppc_booke_queue_inst_storage(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_esr); > >> > > > > Not sure if this is redundant, as we already have fault_esr. > > Or should we ignore what hareware is and create a new esr to guest? > > On Book3S I take the SRR1 we get from the host as > "inspiration" of what to pass to the guest as SRR1. I think > we should definitely be able to inject a fault that we didn't > get in that exact form from the exit path. > > I'm also not sure if something could clobber fault_esr if > another interrupt takes precedence. Say a #MC. No as far as I know. And if yes, the clobber could as well happen before we copy it. Hollis, what do you think we should do here? -- 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] kvmppc/booke: Set ESR and DEAR when inject interrupt to guest
On 22.01.2010, at 12:27, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org >> [mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Graf >> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 7:13 PM >> To: Liu Yu-B13201 >> Cc: hol...@penguinppc.org; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; >> k...@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvmppc/booke: Set ESR and DEAR when >> inject interrupt to guest >> >> >> On 22.01.2010, at 11:54, Liu Yu wrote: >> >>> Old method prematurely sets ESR and DEAR. >>> Move this part after we decide to inject interrupt, >>> and make it more like hardware behave. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Liu Yu >>> --- >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 24 ++-- >>> arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c |2 -- >>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c >>> index e283e44..a8ee148 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c >>> @@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ static void >> kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(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 */ >>> + if (flags == SRR1_PROGTRAP) >>> + vcpu->arch.fault_esr = ESR_PTR; >> >> This looks odd. I was more thinking of "flags" being ESR in >> this context. So you'd save off flags to a field in the vcpu >> here and restore it later when the fault actually gets injected. > > See the end. > >> >>> kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM); >>> } >>> >>> @@ -115,14 +116,19 @@ static int >> kvmppc_booke_irqprio_deliver(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >>> { >>> int allowed = 0; >>> ulong msr_mask; >>> + bool update_esr = false, update_dear = false; >>> >>> switch (priority) { >>> - case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM: >>> case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DTLB_MISS: >>> - case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_ITLB_MISS: >>> - case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SYSCALL: >> >> Is this correct? Was the previous order wrong according to the spec? > > what order? just make switch items share the code. Yikes. Yes. My fault. > >> >>> case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DATA_STORAGE: >>> + update_dear = true; >>> + /* fall through */ >>> case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_INST_STORAGE: >>> + case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM: >>> + update_esr = true; >>> + /* fall through */ >>> + case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_ITLB_MISS: >>> + case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SYSCALL: >>> case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_FP_UNAVAIL: >>> case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_UNAVAIL: >>> case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_FP_DATA: >>> @@ -157,6 +163,10 @@ static int >> kvmppc_booke_irqprio_deliver(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >>> vcpu->arch.srr0 = vcpu->arch.pc; >>> vcpu->arch.srr1 = vcpu->arch.msr; >>> vcpu->arch.pc = vcpu->arch.ivpr | >> vcpu->arch.ivor[priority]; >>> + if (update_esr == true) >>> + vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; >> >> I'd rather like to see new fields used for that. >>> @@ -286,15 +295,12 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run >> *run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >>> break; >>> >>> case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DATA_STORAGE: >>> - vcpu->arch.dear = vcpu->arch.fault_dear; >>> - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; >>> kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, >> BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DATA_STORAGE); >> >> kvmppc_booke_queue_data_storage(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_esr, >> vcpu->arch.fault_dear); >> >>> kvmppc_account_exit(vcpu, DSI_EXITS); >>> r = RESUME_GUEST; >>> break; >>> >>> case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_INST_STORAGE: >>> - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; >>> kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, >> BOOKE_IRQPRIO_INST_STORAGE); >> >> kvmppc_booke_queue_inst_storage(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_esr); >> > > Not sure if this is redundant, as we already have fault_esr. > Or should we ignore what hareware is and create a new esr to guest? On Book3S I take the SRR1 we get f
RE: [PATCH] kvmppc/booke: Set ESR and DEAR when inject interrupt to guest
> -Original Message- > From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Graf > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 7:13 PM > To: Liu Yu-B13201 > Cc: hol...@penguinppc.org; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; > k...@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvmppc/booke: Set ESR and DEAR when > inject interrupt to guest > > > On 22.01.2010, at 11:54, Liu Yu wrote: > > > Old method prematurely sets ESR and DEAR. > > Move this part after we decide to inject interrupt, > > and make it more like hardware behave. > > > > Signed-off-by: Liu Yu > > --- > > arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 24 ++-- > > arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c |2 -- > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > > index e283e44..a8ee148 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > > @@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ static void > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(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 */ > > + if (flags == SRR1_PROGTRAP) > > + vcpu->arch.fault_esr = ESR_PTR; > > This looks odd. I was more thinking of "flags" being ESR in > this context. So you'd save off flags to a field in the vcpu > here and restore it later when the fault actually gets injected. See the end. > > > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM); > > } > > > > @@ -115,14 +116,19 @@ static int > kvmppc_booke_irqprio_deliver(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > > { > > int allowed = 0; > > ulong msr_mask; > > + bool update_esr = false, update_dear = false; > > > > switch (priority) { > > - case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM: > > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DTLB_MISS: > > - case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_ITLB_MISS: > > - case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SYSCALL: > > Is this correct? Was the previous order wrong according to the spec? what order? just make switch items share the code. > > > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DATA_STORAGE: > > + update_dear = true; > > + /* fall through */ > > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_INST_STORAGE: > > + case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM: > > + update_esr = true; > > + /* fall through */ > > + case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_ITLB_MISS: > > + case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SYSCALL: > > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_FP_UNAVAIL: > > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_UNAVAIL: > > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_FP_DATA: > > @@ -157,6 +163,10 @@ static int > kvmppc_booke_irqprio_deliver(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > > vcpu->arch.srr0 = vcpu->arch.pc; > > vcpu->arch.srr1 = vcpu->arch.msr; > > vcpu->arch.pc = vcpu->arch.ivpr | > vcpu->arch.ivor[priority]; > > + if (update_esr == true) > > + vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; > > I'd rather like to see new fields used for that. > > @@ -286,15 +295,12 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run > *run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > > break; > > > > case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DATA_STORAGE: > > - vcpu->arch.dear = vcpu->arch.fault_dear; > > - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; > > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, > BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DATA_STORAGE); > > kvmppc_booke_queue_data_storage(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_esr, > vcpu->arch.fault_dear); > > > kvmppc_account_exit(vcpu, DSI_EXITS); > > r = RESUME_GUEST; > > break; > > > > case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_INST_STORAGE: > > - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; > > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, > BOOKE_IRQPRIO_INST_STORAGE); > > kvmppc_booke_queue_inst_storage(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_esr); > Not sure if this is redundant, as we already have fault_esr. Or should we ignore what hareware is and create a new esr to guest? > > > - vcpu->arch.dear = vcpu->arch.fault_dear; > > - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; > > kvmppc_mmu_dtlb_miss(vcpu); > > kvmppc_account_exit(vcpu, DTLB_REAL_MISS_EXITS); > > r = RESUME_GUEST; > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c > > index b905623..4f6b9df 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c > > @@ -151,8 +151,6 @@ int kvmppc_emulate_instruction(struct > kvm_run *run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > case OP_TRAP: > > #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64 > > case OP_TRAP_64: > > -#else > > - vcpu->arch.esr |= ESR_PTR; > > #endif > > kvmppc_core_queue_program(vcpu, SRR1_PROGTRAP); > > kvmppc_core_queue_program(vcpu, vcpu->arch.esr | ESR_PTR); > This breaks book3s code. -- 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] kvmppc/booke: Set ESR and DEAR when inject interrupt to guest
On 22.01.2010, at 11:54, Liu Yu wrote: > Old method prematurely sets ESR and DEAR. > Move this part after we decide to inject interrupt, > and make it more like hardware behave. > > Signed-off-by: Liu Yu > --- > arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 24 ++-- > arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c |2 -- > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > index e283e44..a8ee148 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > @@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ static void kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(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 */ > + if (flags == SRR1_PROGTRAP) > + vcpu->arch.fault_esr = ESR_PTR; This looks odd. I was more thinking of "flags" being ESR in this context. So you'd save off flags to a field in the vcpu here and restore it later when the fault actually gets injected. > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM); > } > > @@ -115,14 +116,19 @@ static int kvmppc_booke_irqprio_deliver(struct kvm_vcpu > *vcpu, > { > int allowed = 0; > ulong msr_mask; > + bool update_esr = false, update_dear = false; > > switch (priority) { > - case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM: > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DTLB_MISS: > - case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_ITLB_MISS: > - case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SYSCALL: Is this correct? Was the previous order wrong according to the spec? > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DATA_STORAGE: > + update_dear = true; > + /* fall through */ > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_INST_STORAGE: > + case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM: > + update_esr = true; > + /* fall through */ > + case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_ITLB_MISS: > + case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SYSCALL: > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_FP_UNAVAIL: > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_UNAVAIL: > case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_SPE_FP_DATA: > @@ -157,6 +163,10 @@ static int kvmppc_booke_irqprio_deliver(struct kvm_vcpu > *vcpu, > vcpu->arch.srr0 = vcpu->arch.pc; > vcpu->arch.srr1 = vcpu->arch.msr; > vcpu->arch.pc = vcpu->arch.ivpr | vcpu->arch.ivor[priority]; > + if (update_esr == true) > + vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; I'd rather like to see new fields used for that. > + if (update_dear == true) > + vcpu->arch.dear = vcpu->arch.fault_dear; same here > kvmppc_set_msr(vcpu, vcpu->arch.msr & msr_mask); > > clear_bit(priority, &vcpu->arch.pending_exceptions); > @@ -229,7 +239,6 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run *run, struct > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > if (vcpu->arch.msr & MSR_PR) { > /* Program traps generated by user-level software must > be handled >* by the guest kernel. */ > - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_PROGRAM); > r = RESUME_GUEST; > kvmppc_account_exit(vcpu, USR_PR_INST); > @@ -286,15 +295,12 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run *run, struct > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > break; > > case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DATA_STORAGE: > - vcpu->arch.dear = vcpu->arch.fault_dear; > - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DATA_STORAGE); kvmppc_booke_queue_data_storage(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_esr, vcpu->arch.fault_dear); > kvmppc_account_exit(vcpu, DSI_EXITS); > r = RESUME_GUEST; > break; > > case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_INST_STORAGE: > - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, BOOKE_IRQPRIO_INST_STORAGE); kvmppc_booke_queue_inst_storage(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_esr); > kvmppc_account_exit(vcpu, ISI_EXITS); > r = RESUME_GUEST; > @@ -317,8 +323,6 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run *run, struct > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > if (gtlb_index < 0) { > /* The guest didn't have a mapping for it. */ > kvmppc_booke_queue_irqprio(vcpu, > BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DTLB_MISS); see above > - vcpu->arch.dear = vcpu->arch.fault_dear; > - vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr; > kvmppc_mmu_dtlb_miss(vcpu); > kvmppc_account_exit(vcpu, DTLB_REAL_MISS_EXITS); > r = RESUME_GUEST; > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c > index b905623..4f6b9df 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c > @@ -151,8 +151,6 @@ int kvmppc_emulate_instruction(struct kvm_run *run, > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > case OP_TRAP: > #ifdef CONFIG