From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59948) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNggq-00074U-Iw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:09:53 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNggp-0001BC-Cu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:09:52 -0500 From: Aaron Lindsay Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:09:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20181116160909.GD23658@quinoa.localdomain> References: <20181105185046.2802-1-aaron@os.amperecomputing.com> <20181105185046.2802-4-aaron@os.amperecomputing.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <83E306323E4A534A827D85B60C263480@prod.exchangelabs.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 03/12] target/arm: Swap PMU values before/after migrations List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: "qemu-arm@nongnu.org" , Alistair Francis , Wei Huang , Peter Crosthwaite , Richard Henderson , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Michael Spradling , Digant Desai , Aaron Lindsay On Nov 16 14:53, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 5 November 2018 at 18:51, Aaron Lindsay = wrote: > > Because of the PMU's design, many register accesses have side effects > > which are inter-related, meaning that the normal method of saving CP > > registers can result in inconsistent state. These side-effects are > > largely handled in pmu_op_start/finish functions which can be called > > before and after the state is saved/restored. By doing this and adding > > raw read/write functions for the affected registers, we avoid > > migration-related inconsistencies. > > > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lindsay >=20 > > --- a/target/arm/machine.c > > +++ b/target/arm/machine.c > > @@ -604,6 +604,8 @@ static int cpu_pre_save(void *opaque) > > { > > ARMCPU *cpu =3D opaque; > > > > + pmu_op_start(&cpu->env); > > + > > if (kvm_enabled()) { > > if (!write_kvmstate_to_list(cpu)) { > > /* This should never fail */ > > @@ -625,6 +627,20 @@ static int cpu_pre_save(void *opaque) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static int cpu_post_save(void *opaque) > > +{ > > + ARMCPU *cpu =3D opaque; > > + pmu_op_finish(&cpu->env); > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static int cpu_pre_load(void *opaque) > > +{ > > + ARMCPU *cpu =3D opaque; > > + pmu_op_start(&cpu->env); > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > static int cpu_post_load(void *opaque, int version_id) > > { > > ARMCPU *cpu =3D opaque; > > @@ -672,6 +688,8 @@ static int cpu_post_load(void *opaque, int version_= id) > > hw_breakpoint_update_all(cpu); > > hw_watchpoint_update_all(cpu); > > > > + pmu_op_finish(&cpu->env); > > + > > return 0; > > } >=20 > This will end up calling pmu_op_start() and pmu_op_finish() > even if the guest is running KVM and we're not using the > TCG code. Is that what you intended? The counters are still stored in their 'difference' format for KVM, so I think this still makes sense. Or is there something I'm missing about how this will interact with KVM? I'm much more familiar with TCG. -Aaron