[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 04/17] x86emul: support {, V}{, U}COMIS{S, D}
On 28/02/17 12:51, Jan Beulich wrote: > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > --- > v4: Add missing copy_REX_VEX(). > v3: Ignore VEX.l. Add fic.exn_raised constraint to invoke_stub() use. > v2: Add missing RET to stub. Generate #UD (instead of simply failing) > when VEX.l is disallowed. > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c > @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ static const struct { > [0x2a] = { DstImplicit|SrcMem|ModRM|Mov, simd_other }, > [0x2b] = { DstMem|SrcImplicit|ModRM|Mov, simd_any_fp }, > [0x2c ... 0x2d] = { DstImplicit|SrcMem|ModRM|Mov, simd_other }, > - [0x2e ... 0x2f] = { ImplicitOps|ModRM }, > + [0x2e ... 0x2f] = { ImplicitOps|ModRM|TwoOp }, > [0x30 ... 0x35] = { ImplicitOps }, > [0x37] = { ImplicitOps }, > [0x38] = { DstReg|SrcMem|ModRM }, > @@ -5468,6 +5468,55 @@ x86_emulate( > state->simd_size = simd_none; > break; > > + CASE_SIMD_PACKED_FP(, 0x0f, 0x2e): /* ucomis{s,d} xmm/mem,xmm */ > + CASE_SIMD_PACKED_FP(_VEX, 0x0f, 0x2e): /* vucomis{s,d} xmm/mem,xmm */ > + CASE_SIMD_PACKED_FP(, 0x0f, 0x2f): /* comis{s,d} xmm/mem,xmm */ > + CASE_SIMD_PACKED_FP(_VEX, 0x0f, 0x2f): /* vcomis{s,d} xmm/mem,xmm */ > + if ( vex.opcx == vex_none ) > + { > + if ( vex.pfx ) > + vcpu_must_have(sse2); > + else > + vcpu_must_have(sse); > + get_fpu(X86EMUL_FPU_xmm, &fic); > + } > + else > + { > + host_and_vcpu_must_have(avx); > + get_fpu(X86EMUL_FPU_ymm, &fic); > + } This is starting to become a common sequence. Is there any sensible way to factor it out in a non-macro way, to avoid the compiler instantiating it at the top of many basic blocks? > + > + opc = init_prefixes(stub); > + opc[0] = b; > + opc[1] = modrm; > + if ( ea.type == OP_MEM ) > + { > + rc = ops->read(ea.mem.seg, ea.mem.off, mmvalp, vex.pfx ? 8 : 4, > + ctxt); > + if ( rc != X86EMUL_OKAY ) > + goto done; > + > + /* Convert memory operand to (%rAX). */ > + rex_prefix &= ~REX_B; > + vex.b = 1; > + opc[1] &= 0x38; > + } > + fic.insn_bytes = PFX_BYTES + 2; > + opc[2] = 0xc3; > + > + copy_REX_VEX(opc, rex_prefix, vex); > + invoke_stub(_PRE_EFLAGS("[eflags]", "[mask]", "[tmp]"), > + _POST_EFLAGS("[eflags]", "[mask]", "[tmp]"), > + [eflags] "+g" (_regs._eflags), > + [tmp] "=&r" (cr4 /* dummy */), "+m" (*mmvalp), This is latently dangerous. It would be better to have an explicit "unsigned long dummy;", which the compiler will perfectly easily elide during register scheduling. ~Andrew > + "+m" (fic.exn_raised) > + : [func] "rm" (stub.func), "a" (mmvalp), > + [mask] "i" (EFLAGS_MASK)); > + > + put_stub(stub); > + put_fpu(&fic); > + break; > + > case X86EMUL_OPC(0x0f, 0x30): /* wrmsr */ > generate_exception_if(!mode_ring0(), EXC_GP, 0); > fail_if(ops->write_msr == NULL); > > > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |