From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 17/17] x86/hvm: track large memory mapped
 accesses by buffer offset
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:46:50 +0100
Message-ID: <558BF83A02000078000897E7@mail.emea.novell.com>
References: <1435145089-21999-1-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com>
	<1435145089-21999-18-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <JBeulich@suse.com>) id 1Z84gH-0005rG-Nx
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 10:46:53 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1435145089-21999-18-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 24.06.15 at 13:24, <paul.durrant@citrix.com> wrote:
> @@ -621,14 +574,41 @@ static int hvmemul_phys_mmio_access(
>  
>      for ( ;; )
>      {
> -        rc = hvmemul_do_mmio_buffer(gpa, &one_rep, chunk, dir, 0,
> -                                    *buffer);
> -        if ( rc != X86EMUL_OKAY )
> -            break;
> +        /* Have we already done this chunk? */
> +        if ( (*off + chunk) <= vio->mmio_cache[dir].size )

I can see why you would like to get rid of the address check, but
I'm afraid you can't: You have to avoid getting mixed up multiple
same kind (reads or writes) memory accesses that a single
instruction can do. While generally I would assume that
secondary accesses (like the I/O bitmap read associated with an
OUTS) wouldn't go to MMIO, CMPS with both operands being
in MMIO would break even if neither crosses a page boundary
(not to think of when the emulator starts supporting the
scatter/gather instructions, albeit supporting them will require
further changes, or we could choose to do them one element at
a time).

> +        {
> +            ASSERT(*off + chunk <= vio->mmio_cache[dir].size);

I don't see any difference to the if() expression just above.

> +            if ( dir == IOREQ_READ )
> +                memcpy(&buffer[*off],
> +                       &vio->mmio_cache[IOREQ_READ].buffer[*off],
> +                       chunk);
> +            else
> +            {
> +                if ( memcmp(&buffer[*off],

"else if" please.

> +                            &vio->mmio_cache[IOREQ_WRITE].buffer[*off],
> +                            chunk) != 0 )
> +                    domain_crash(curr->domain);
> +            }
> +        }
> +        else
> +        {
> +            ASSERT(*off == vio->mmio_cache[dir].size);
> +
> +            rc = hvmemul_do_mmio_buffer(gpa, &one_rep, chunk, dir, 0,
> +                                        &buffer[*off]);
> +            if ( rc != X86EMUL_OKAY )
> +                break;
> +
> +            /* Note that we have now done this chunk */

Missing stop.

Jan