Re: [PATCH v7 13/27] KVM: arm64/sve: Context switch the SVE registers

[Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:01:45PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 01:00:38PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> > In order to give each vcpu its own view of the SVE registers, this
> > patch adds context storage via a new sve_state pointer in struct
> > vcpu_arch.  An additional member sve_max_vl is also added for each
> > vcpu, to determine the maximum vector length visible to the guest
> > and thus the value to be configured in ZCR_EL2.LEN while the vcpu
> > is active.  This also determines the layout and size of the storage
> > in sve_state, which is read and written by the same backend
> > functions that are used for context-switching the SVE state for
> > host tasks.
> > 
> > On SVE-enabled vcpus, SVE access traps are now handled by switching
> > in the vcpu's SVE context and disabling the trap before returning
> > to the guest.  On other vcpus, the trap is not handled and an exit
> > back to the host occurs, where the handle_sve() fallback path
> > reflects an undefined instruction exception back to the guest,
> > consistently with the behaviour of non-SVE-capable hardware (as was
> > done unconditionally prior to this patch).
> > 
> > No SVE handling is added on non-VHE-only paths, since VHE is an
> > architectural and Kconfig prerequisite of SVE.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
> > Tested-by: zhang.lei <zhang.lei@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes since v5:
> > 
> >  * [Julien Thierry, Julien Grall] Commit message typo fixes
> > 
> >  * [Mark Rutland] Rename trap_class to hsr_ec, for consistency with
> >    existing code.
> > 
> >  * [Mark Rutland] Simplify condition for refusing to handle an
> >    FPSIMD/SVE trap, using multiple if () statements for clarity.  The
> >    previous condition was a bit tortuous, and how that the static_key
> >    checks have been hoisted out, it makes little difference to the
> >    compiler how we express the condition here.
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  6 ++++
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/fpsimd.c           |  5 +--
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c       | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >  3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 22cf484..4fabfd2 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -228,6 +228,8 @@ struct vcpu_reset_state {
> >  
> >  struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> >  	struct kvm_cpu_context ctxt;
> > +	void *sve_state;
> > +	unsigned int sve_max_vl;
> >  
> >  	/* HYP configuration */
> >  	u64 hcr_el2;
> > @@ -323,6 +325,10 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> >  	bool sysregs_loaded_on_cpu;
> >  };
> >  
> > +/* Pointer to the vcpu's SVE FFR for sve_{save,load}_state() */
> > +#define vcpu_sve_pffr(vcpu) ((void *)((char *)((vcpu)->arch.sve_state) + \
> > +				      sve_ffr_offset((vcpu)->arch.sve_max_vl)))
> 
> Maybe an inline function instead?

I tried, but that requires the definition of struct kvm_vcpu to be
visible.  I failed to get that here without circular #include problems,
and it looked tricky to fix.

Since this is a small bit of code which is unlikely to get used by
accident, I decided it was OK to keep it as a macro.

Can you see another way around this?

[...]

> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>

Thanks

---Dave