[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/9] xen/arm: Add more registers for saving and restoring vcpu registers
> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel- > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ian Campbell > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:26 PM > To: Tim Deegan > Cc: Keir Fraser; Stefano Stabellini; Jan Beulich; Jaeyong Yoo; xen- > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/9] xen/arm: Add more registers for > saving and restoring vcpu registers > > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 11:22 +0100, Tim Deegan wrote: > > At 09:43 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381484614), Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 17:30 +0900, Jaeyong Yoo wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel- > > > > > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ian Campbell > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:41 PM > > > > > To: Jaeyong Yoo > > > > > Cc: Tim Deegan; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/9] xen/arm: Add more > > > > > registers for saving and restoring vcpu registers > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 13:43 +0900, Jaeyong Yoo wrote: > > > > > > diff --git a/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h > > > > > > b/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h index 5d359af..bf6dc9a 100644 > > > > > > --- a/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h > > > > > > +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h > > > > > > @@ -253,6 +253,41 @@ struct vcpu_guest_context { > > > > > > > > > > > > uint32_t sctlr, ttbcr; > > > > > > uint64_t ttbr0, ttbr1; > > > > > > + uint32_t ifar, dfar; > > > > > > + uint32_t ifsr, dfsr; > > > > > > + uint32_t dacr; > > > > > > + uint64_t par; > > > > > > + > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_32 > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid a per arch ifdef isn't allowed in the include/public > tree. > > > > > The interface should be identical for both 32 and 64 bit > > > > > callers. Also think of 32-on-64 guests etc. > > > > > > > > > > Also, this struct is guest facing (via VCPUOP_initialise) but > > > > > many/all of these new registers are not things which a guest > > > > > needs to specify via a hypercall. IOW I think many of them > > > > > should be part of some toolstack private save/restore interface. > > > > > > > > I see, the guest can specify something like sctlr, and ttbr/ttbcr, > > > > and the others should be hidden inside hvm save/restore. > > > > > > Right, the important thing is that all that additional state is only > > > visible to the toolstack and the hypervisor, not to guests. > > > > > > Actually the guest shouldn't really see this interface anyway, > > > that's really a hold over from x86. On ARM only the toolstack really > > > needs to use this struct. > > > > > > I wonder if we can drop struct vcpu_guest_context from the guest > > > facing ABI on ARM. I see that we already don't expose > > > VCPUOP_initialise and the only other user is > XEN_DOMCTL_(sg)etvcpucontext. > > > > Does the guest need to have those on ARM? How are you arranging SMP > > guest AP bringup? If it's using SCI then maybe that hypercall > > interface can be dropped. > > SMP bring up is done via PSCI, which is the firmware "hypercall" > interface, defined by ARM for bringing up physucal CPUs which we implement > within Xen for the guests' benefit. So, could I remove XEN_DOMCTL_(sg)etvcpucontext and use HVM save/restore for migrating vcpu registers? And, if I could, arch_get_info_guest becomes dangling function and would it be better to remove this function too? or better to keep it for symmetry? Jaeyong > > Ian > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |