lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 1/6] arm64/kvm: preserve host HCR_EL2 value
From
Date
Hi,

On 2/21/19 9:19 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 02:54:26PM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
>> From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>>
>> When restoring HCR_EL2 for the host, KVM uses HCR_HOST_VHE_FLAGS, which
>> is a constant value. This works today, as the host HCR_EL2 value is
>> always the same, but this will get in the way of supporting extensions
>> that require HCR_EL2 bits to be set conditionally for the host.
>>
>> To allow such features to work without KVM having to explicitly handle
>> every possible host feature combination, this patch has KVM save/restore
>> for the host HCR when switching to/from a guest HCR. The saving of the
>> register is done once during cpu hypervisor initialization state and is
>> just restored after switch from guest.
>>
>> For fetching HCR_EL2 during kvm initialisation, a hyp call is made using
>> kvm_call_hyp and is helpful in NHVE case.
>
> Minor nit: NVHE misspelled. This looks a bit like it's naming an arch
> feature rather than a kernel implementation detail though. Maybe write
> "non-VHE".
yes.
>
>> For the hyp TLB maintenance code, __tlb_switch_to_host_vhe() is updated
>> to toggle the TGE bit with a RMW sequence, as we already do in
>> __tlb_switch_to_guest_vhe().
>>
>> The value of hcr_el2 is now stored in struct kvm_cpu_context as both host
>> and guest can now use this field in a common way.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>> [Added __cpu_copy_hyp_conf, hcr_el2 field in struct kvm_cpu_context]
>> Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
>> Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> ---
>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h | 2 ++
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h | 22 +++++++++++-----------
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 13 ++++++++++++-
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_hyp.h | 2 +-
>> arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c | 2 +-
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/sysreg-sr.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/tlb.c | 6 +++++-
>> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 1 +
>> 10 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index ca56537..05706b4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -273,6 +273,8 @@ static inline void __cpu_init_stage2(void)
>> kvm_call_hyp(__init_stage2_translation);
>> }
>>
>> +static inline void __cpu_copy_hyp_conf(void) {}
>> +
>> static inline int kvm_arch_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
>> {
>> return 0;
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
>> index f5b79e9..8acd73f 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
>> @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ extern void __vgic_v3_init_lrs(void);
>>
>> extern u32 __kvm_get_mdcr_el2(void);
>>
>> +extern void __kvm_populate_host_regs(void);
>> +
>> /* Home-grown __this_cpu_{ptr,read} variants that always work at HYP */
>> #define __hyp_this_cpu_ptr(sym) \
>> ({ \
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h
>> index 506386a..0dbe795 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h
>> @@ -50,25 +50,25 @@ void kvm_inject_pabt32(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long addr);
>>
>> static inline bool vcpu_el1_is_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> {
>> - return !(vcpu->arch.hcr_el2 & HCR_RW);
>> + return !(vcpu->arch.ctxt.hcr_el2 & HCR_RW);
>
> Putting hcr_el2 into struct kvm_cpu_context creates a lot of splatter
> here, and I'm wondering whether it's really necessary. Otherwise,
> we could just put the per-vcpu guest HCR_EL2 value in struct
> kvm_vcpu_arch.
I did like that in V4 version [1] but comments were raised that this was
repetition of hcr_el2 field in 2 places and may be avoided.

[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/4/433
>
> Is the *host* hcr_el2 value really different per-vcpu? That looks
> odd. I would have thought this is fixed across the system at KVM
> startup time.
>
> Having a single global host hcr_el2 would also avoid the need for
> __kvm_populate_host_regs(): instead, we just decide what HCR_EL2 is to
> be ahead of time and set a global variable that we map into Hyp.
>
>
> Or does the host HCR_EL2 need to vary at runtime for some reason I've
> missed?
This patch basically makes host hcr_el2 not to use fixed values like
HCR_HOST_NVHE_FLAGS/HCR_HOST_VHE_FLAGS during context switch and hence
saves those values at boot time. This patch is just preparation to
configure host hcr_el2 dynamically. However currently it is same for all
cpus.

I suppose it is better to have host hcr_el2 as percpu to take care of
heterogeneous systems. Currently even host mdcr_el2 is stored on percpu
basis(arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c).
>
> [...]
>
> +void __hyp_text __kvm_populate_host_regs(void)
> +{
> + struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt;
> +
> + if (has_vhe())
> + host_ctxt = this_cpu_ptr(&kvm_host_cpu_state);
> + else
> + host_ctxt = __hyp_this_cpu_ptr(kvm_host_cpu_state);
>
> According to the comment by the definition of __hyp_this_cpu_ptr(), this
> always works at Hyp. I also see other calls with no fallback
> this_cpu_ptr() call like we have here.
>
> So, can we simply always call __hyp_this_cpu_ptr() here?
Yes i missed this.

Thanks,
Amit D
>
> (I'm not familiar with this, myself.)
>
> Cheers
> ---Dave
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-01 06:56    [W:0.135 / U:18.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site