From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] libx86: Introduce wrappers for extracting XCR0/XSS from a cpuid policy Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 05:52:55 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <5CE689970200007800231AD9@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1558607223-19630-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >>> On 23.05.19 at 12:27, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/xstate.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/xstate.c > @@ -660,9 +660,7 @@ static bool valid_xcr0(u64 xcr0) > int validate_xstate(const struct domain *d, uint64_t xcr0, uint64_t xcr0_accum, > const struct xsave_hdr *hdr) > { > - const struct cpuid_policy *cp = d->arch.cpuid; > - uint64_t xcr0_max = > - ((uint64_t)cp->xstate.xcr0_high << 32) | cp->xstate.xcr0_low; > + uint64_t xcr0_max = cpuid_policy_xcr0(d->arch.cpuid); > unsigned int i; > > if ( (hdr->xstate_bv & ~xcr0_accum) || > @@ -686,9 +684,7 @@ int validate_xstate(const struct domain *d, uint64_t xcr0, uint64_t xcr0_accum, > int handle_xsetbv(u32 index, u64 new_bv) > { > struct vcpu *curr = current; > - const struct cpuid_policy *cp = curr->domain->arch.cpuid; > - uint64_t xcr0_max = > - ((uint64_t)cp->xstate.xcr0_high << 32) | cp->xstate.xcr0_low; > + uint64_t xcr0_max = cpuid_policy_xcr0(curr->domain->arch.cpuid); In both cases the variables are more appropriately named than the new helper. While I agree it's slightly more typing, did you consider calling it cpuid_policy_xcr0_max()? > --- a/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpuid.h > +++ b/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpuid.h > @@ -308,6 +308,18 @@ static inline void cpuid_featureset_to_policy( > p->feat._7a1 = fs[FEATURESET_7a1]; > } > > +static inline uint64_t cpuid_policy_xcr0(const struct cpuid_policy *p) > +{ > + return ((uint64_t)p->xstate.xcr0_high << 32) | p->xstate.xcr0_low; > +} > + > +static inline uint64_t cpuid_policy_xstates(const struct cpuid_policy *p) > +{ > + uint64_t val = p->xstate.xcr0_high | p->xstate.xss_high; > + > + return (val << 32) | p->xstate.xcr0_low | p->xstate.xss_low; > +} How about also having cpuid_policy_xss() (or cpuid_policy_xss_max()) and then simply making cpuid_policy_xstates() combine the two results? Anyway, as I can also live with things as they are, with or without either of the suggested changes Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> To: "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libx86: Introduce wrappers for extracting XCR0/XSS from a cpuid policy Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 05:52:55 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <5CE689970200007800231AD9@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw) Message-ID: <20190523115255.BBgaQV9AeBu56LQqaIvrzBpfY2wC2kKWSI7NNZ2VPJY@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1558607223-19630-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> >>> On 23.05.19 at 12:27, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/xstate.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/xstate.c > @@ -660,9 +660,7 @@ static bool valid_xcr0(u64 xcr0) > int validate_xstate(const struct domain *d, uint64_t xcr0, uint64_t xcr0_accum, > const struct xsave_hdr *hdr) > { > - const struct cpuid_policy *cp = d->arch.cpuid; > - uint64_t xcr0_max = > - ((uint64_t)cp->xstate.xcr0_high << 32) | cp->xstate.xcr0_low; > + uint64_t xcr0_max = cpuid_policy_xcr0(d->arch.cpuid); > unsigned int i; > > if ( (hdr->xstate_bv & ~xcr0_accum) || > @@ -686,9 +684,7 @@ int validate_xstate(const struct domain *d, uint64_t xcr0, uint64_t xcr0_accum, > int handle_xsetbv(u32 index, u64 new_bv) > { > struct vcpu *curr = current; > - const struct cpuid_policy *cp = curr->domain->arch.cpuid; > - uint64_t xcr0_max = > - ((uint64_t)cp->xstate.xcr0_high << 32) | cp->xstate.xcr0_low; > + uint64_t xcr0_max = cpuid_policy_xcr0(curr->domain->arch.cpuid); In both cases the variables are more appropriately named than the new helper. While I agree it's slightly more typing, did you consider calling it cpuid_policy_xcr0_max()? > --- a/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpuid.h > +++ b/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpuid.h > @@ -308,6 +308,18 @@ static inline void cpuid_featureset_to_policy( > p->feat._7a1 = fs[FEATURESET_7a1]; > } > > +static inline uint64_t cpuid_policy_xcr0(const struct cpuid_policy *p) > +{ > + return ((uint64_t)p->xstate.xcr0_high << 32) | p->xstate.xcr0_low; > +} > + > +static inline uint64_t cpuid_policy_xstates(const struct cpuid_policy *p) > +{ > + uint64_t val = p->xstate.xcr0_high | p->xstate.xss_high; > + > + return (val << 32) | p->xstate.xcr0_low | p->xstate.xss_low; > +} How about also having cpuid_policy_xss() (or cpuid_policy_xss_max()) and then simply making cpuid_policy_xstates() combine the two results? Anyway, as I can also live with things as they are, with or without either of the suggested changes Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-23 11:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-05-22 15:50 [PATCH] libx86: Elide more empty CPUID leaves when serialising a policy Andrew Cooper 2019-05-22 15:50 ` [Xen-devel] " Andrew Cooper 2019-05-23 8:33 ` Jan Beulich 2019-05-23 8:33 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich 2019-05-23 10:38 ` Andrew Cooper 2019-05-23 10:38 ` [Xen-devel] " Andrew Cooper 2019-05-23 10:27 ` [PATCH] libx86: Introduce wrappers for extracting XCR0/XSS from a cpuid policy Andrew Cooper 2019-05-23 10:27 ` [Xen-devel] " Andrew Cooper 2019-05-23 11:52 ` Jan Beulich [this message] 2019-05-23 11:52 ` Jan Beulich 2019-05-23 11:59 ` Andrew Cooper 2019-05-23 11:59 ` [Xen-devel] " Andrew Cooper 2019-05-23 12:08 ` Jan Beulich 2019-05-23 12:08 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
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=5CE689970200007800231AD9@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com \ --to=jbeulich@suse.com \ --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \ --cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \ --cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \ --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \ /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).