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
