From: Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org> To: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@linaro.org> Cc: Christoffer Dall <c.dall@virtualopensystems.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu> Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] KVM: ARM: Handle I/O aborts Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:07:25 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20121001160725.GC2100@linaro.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1349104329.2160.71.camel@linaro1.home> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 04:12:09PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 13:53 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 05:49:21PM -0400, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 04:35:59PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > > I'm afraid you're not going to thank me much for this, but it's high time we > > > > unified the various instruction decoding functions we have under arch/arm/ > > > > and this seems like a good opportunity for that. For example, look at the > > > > following snippets (there is much more in the files I list) in addition to > > > > what you have: > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be great if we had a set of unified decoding functions! > > > > > > However, I think it's a shame if we can't merge KVM because we want to > > > clean up this code. There would be nothing in the way of breaking API > > > or anything like that preventing us from cleaning this up after the > > > code has been merged. > > > > > > Please consider reviewing the code for correctness and consider if the > > > code could be merged as is. > > > > > > On the other hand, if you or Dave or anyone else wants to create a set > > > of patches that cleans this up in a timely manner, I will be happy to > > > merge them for my code as well ;) > > > > The time I would have available to put into this is rather limited, but > > I have some initial ideas, as outlined below. > > > > Tixy (who did the kprobes implementation, which is probably the most > > sophisticated opcode handling we have in the kernel right now) may have > > ideas too. I would hope that any common framework could reuse a fair > > chunk of his implementation and test coverage. > > To my thinking, the kprobes code is very tailored to the job it needs to > do and that turning it into something generic is just going to make > everything bigger and more complex - because a generic framework would > be bigger (as it's trying to be generic) and then things like kprobes > will probably end up having an additional framework layered over the top > to bend it to it's purposes. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic. Perhaps kprobes is a bit of a double-edged example. It's an example of an implementation with some good features, but because it is larger the amount of adaptation required to convert to a common framework would necessarily be larger also. Yet, kprobes isn't trying to solve radically different problems from other subsystems in the kernel. It doesn't just want to descode and manipulate the properties of instructions, it is actually interested in many of the same properties (for example, whether an instruction is a load or store, whether it modifies the PC etc.) as some other subsystems. I worry that by default every implementation of this ends up rather deeply tailored to its correcponding subsystem -- so we gradually accumulate more incompatible partially-overlapping duplicates of this functionality over time. This doesn't feel like a good thing. > It would also requiring an inordinate amount of time to thrash out > requirements, design, prototype, and to implement. (I don't think I'm > being overly pessimistic about that ;-) > > So, unless some-one has serious quantities of spare time lying around... Well, I don't suggest that we should expect to get there in one go: such an effort won't ever the off the ground for sure. If we can consolidate a few simpler subsystems' opcode handling then that would still be a step in the right direction, even if integrating kprobes could not happen until much later. If we do nothing, the situation will just gradually get worse. Cheers ---Dave
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: dave.martin@linaro.org (Dave Martin) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH 14/15] KVM: ARM: Handle I/O aborts Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:07:25 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20121001160725.GC2100@linaro.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1349104329.2160.71.camel@linaro1.home> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 04:12:09PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 13:53 +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 05:49:21PM -0400, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 04:35:59PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > > > I'm afraid you're not going to thank me much for this, but it's high time we > > > > unified the various instruction decoding functions we have under arch/arm/ > > > > and this seems like a good opportunity for that. For example, look at the > > > > following snippets (there is much more in the files I list) in addition to > > > > what you have: > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be great if we had a set of unified decoding functions! > > > > > > However, I think it's a shame if we can't merge KVM because we want to > > > clean up this code. There would be nothing in the way of breaking API > > > or anything like that preventing us from cleaning this up after the > > > code has been merged. > > > > > > Please consider reviewing the code for correctness and consider if the > > > code could be merged as is. > > > > > > On the other hand, if you or Dave or anyone else wants to create a set > > > of patches that cleans this up in a timely manner, I will be happy to > > > merge them for my code as well ;) > > > > The time I would have available to put into this is rather limited, but > > I have some initial ideas, as outlined below. > > > > Tixy (who did the kprobes implementation, which is probably the most > > sophisticated opcode handling we have in the kernel right now) may have > > ideas too. I would hope that any common framework could reuse a fair > > chunk of his implementation and test coverage. > > To my thinking, the kprobes code is very tailored to the job it needs to > do and that turning it into something generic is just going to make > everything bigger and more complex - because a generic framework would > be bigger (as it's trying to be generic) and then things like kprobes > will probably end up having an additional framework layered over the top > to bend it to it's purposes. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic. Perhaps kprobes is a bit of a double-edged example. It's an example of an implementation with some good features, but because it is larger the amount of adaptation required to convert to a common framework would necessarily be larger also. Yet, kprobes isn't trying to solve radically different problems from other subsystems in the kernel. It doesn't just want to descode and manipulate the properties of instructions, it is actually interested in many of the same properties (for example, whether an instruction is a load or store, whether it modifies the PC etc.) as some other subsystems. I worry that by default every implementation of this ends up rather deeply tailored to its correcponding subsystem -- so we gradually accumulate more incompatible partially-overlapping duplicates of this functionality over time. This doesn't feel like a good thing. > It would also requiring an inordinate amount of time to thrash out > requirements, design, prototype, and to implement. (I don't think I'm > being overly pessimistic about that ;-) > > So, unless some-one has serious quantities of spare time lying around... Well, I don't suggest that we should expect to get there in one go: such an effort won't ever the off the ground for sure. If we can consolidate a few simpler subsystems' opcode handling then that would still be a step in the right direction, even if integrating kprobes could not happen until much later. If we do nothing, the situation will just gradually get worse. Cheers ---Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-01 16:07 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 164+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-09-15 15:34 [PATCH 00/15] KVM/ARM Implementation Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:34 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:34 ` [PATCH 01/15] ARM: add mem_type prot_pte accessor Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:34 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 12:23 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-18 12:23 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-18 19:18 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 19:18 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 21:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2012-09-18 21:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2012-09-18 21:53 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 21:53 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-20 10:01 ` Marc Zyngier 2012-09-20 10:01 ` Marc Zyngier 2012-09-20 13:21 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-20 13:21 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:34 ` [PATCH 02/15] ARM: Add page table and page defines needed by KVM Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:34 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 12:47 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-18 12:47 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-18 14:06 ` Catalin Marinas 2012-09-18 14:06 ` Catalin Marinas 2012-09-18 15:05 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 15:05 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 15:07 ` Catalin Marinas 2012-09-18 15:07 ` Catalin Marinas 2012-09-18 15:10 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 15:10 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 22:01 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 22:01 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-19 9:21 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-19 9:21 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-20 0:10 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-20 0:10 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:34 ` [PATCH 03/15] ARM: Section based HYP idmap Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:34 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 13:00 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-18 13:00 ` Will Deacon 2012-10-01 2:19 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-10-01 2:19 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:34 ` [PATCH 04/15] ARM: idmap: only initialize HYP idmap when HYP mode is available Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:34 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 13:03 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-18 13:03 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-20 0:11 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-20 0:11 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` [PATCH 05/15] ARM: Expose PMNC bitfields for KVM use Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 13:08 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-18 13:08 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-18 22:13 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 22:13 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-19 4:09 ` [kvmarm] " Rusty Russell 2012-09-19 4:09 ` Rusty Russell 2012-09-19 9:30 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-19 9:30 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-15 15:35 ` [PATCH 06/15] KVM: ARM: Initial skeleton to compile KVM support Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-25 15:20 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-25 15:20 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-26 1:43 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-26 1:43 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-27 14:13 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-27 14:13 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-27 14:39 ` Marc Zyngier 2012-09-27 14:39 ` Marc Zyngier 2012-09-27 14:45 ` [kvmarm] " Peter Maydell 2012-09-27 14:45 ` Peter Maydell 2012-09-27 15:20 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-27 15:20 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-30 19:21 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-30 19:21 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-10-01 13:03 ` [kvmarm] " Marc Zyngier 2012-10-01 13:03 ` Marc Zyngier 2012-10-04 13:02 ` Min-gyu Kim 2012-10-04 13:02 ` Min-gyu Kim 2012-10-04 13:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-10-04 13:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-10-05 6:28 ` Rusty Russell 2012-10-05 6:28 ` Rusty Russell 2012-10-04 13:44 ` [kvmarm] " Avi Kivity 2012-10-04 13:44 ` Avi Kivity 2012-09-15 15:35 ` [PATCH 07/15] KVM: ARM: Hypervisor inititalization Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` [PATCH 08/15] KVM: ARM: Memory virtualization setup Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` [PATCH 09/15] KVM: ARM: Inject IRQs and FIQs from userspace Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-25 15:55 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-25 15:55 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-29 15:50 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-29 15:50 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-30 12:48 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-30 12:48 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-30 14:34 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-30 14:34 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` [PATCH 10/15] KVM: ARM: World-switch implementation Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-25 17:00 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-25 17:00 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-25 17:15 ` [kvmarm] " Peter Maydell 2012-09-25 17:15 ` Peter Maydell 2012-09-25 17:42 ` Marc Zyngier 2012-09-25 17:42 ` Marc Zyngier 2012-09-30 0:33 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-30 0:33 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-30 9:48 ` Peter Maydell 2012-09-30 9:48 ` Peter Maydell 2012-09-30 14:31 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-30 14:31 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-30 17:47 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-30 17:47 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` [PATCH 11/15] KVM: ARM: Emulation framework and CP15 emulation Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` [PATCH 12/15] KVM: ARM: User space API for getting/setting co-proc registers Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` [PATCH 13/15] KVM: ARM: Handle guest faults in KVM Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-25 11:11 ` Min-gyu Kim 2012-09-25 11:11 ` Min-gyu Kim 2012-09-25 12:38 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-25 12:38 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-27 3:11 ` Min-gyu Kim 2012-09-27 3:11 ` Min-gyu Kim 2012-09-27 5:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-27 5:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-27 15:26 ` [kvmarm] " Marc Zyngier 2012-09-27 15:26 ` Marc Zyngier 2012-09-27 12:39 ` Catalin Marinas 2012-09-27 12:39 ` Catalin Marinas 2012-09-27 17:15 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-27 17:15 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-27 17:21 ` Catalin Marinas 2012-09-27 17:21 ` Catalin Marinas 2012-09-15 15:35 ` [PATCH 14/15] KVM: ARM: Handle I/O aborts Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:35 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-27 15:11 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-27 15:11 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-30 21:49 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-30 21:49 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-10-01 12:53 ` Dave Martin 2012-10-01 12:53 ` Dave Martin 2012-10-01 15:12 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy) 2012-10-01 15:12 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy) 2012-10-01 16:07 ` Dave Martin [this message] 2012-10-01 16:07 ` Dave Martin 2012-10-05 9:00 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2012-10-05 9:00 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2012-10-08 10:04 ` Dave Martin 2012-10-08 10:04 ` Dave Martin 2012-10-08 21:52 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-10-08 21:52 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:36 ` [PATCH 15/15] KVM: ARM: Guest wait-for-interrupts (WFI) support Christoffer Dall 2012-09-15 15:36 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-25 17:04 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-25 17:04 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-29 23:00 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-29 23:00 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 12:21 ` [PATCH 00/15] KVM/ARM Implementation Will Deacon 2012-09-18 12:21 ` Will Deacon 2012-09-18 12:32 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-18 12:32 ` Christoffer Dall 2012-09-19 12:44 ` Avi Kivity 2012-09-19 12:44 ` Avi Kivity
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20121001160725.GC2100@linaro.org \ --to=dave.martin@linaro.org \ --cc=c.dall@virtualopensystems.com \ --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=tixy@linaro.org \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.