lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 10/18] arm64: KVM/debug: use EL1&0 stage 1 translation regime
On 2020-01-13 16:31, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 10:34:55AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:30:17 +0000,
>> Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> >
>> > Now that we have all the save/restore mechanism in place, lets enable
>> > the translation regime used by buffer from EL2 stage 1 to EL1 stage 1
>> > on VHE systems.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> > [ Reword commit, don't trap to EL2 ]
>>
>> Not trapping to EL2 for the case where we don't allow SPE in the
>> guest is not acceptable.
>>
>> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
>> > ---
>> > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 2 ++
>> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>> > index 67b7c160f65b..6c153b79829b 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
>> > @@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ static void activate_traps_vhe(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> >
>> > write_sysreg(val, cpacr_el1);
>> >
>> > + write_sysreg(vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2 | 3 << MDCR_EL2_E2PB_SHIFT, mdcr_el2);
>> > write_sysreg(kvm_get_hyp_vector(), vbar_el1);
>> > }
>> > NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(activate_traps_vhe);
>> > @@ -117,6 +118,7 @@ static void __hyp_text __activate_traps_nvhe(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> > __activate_traps_fpsimd32(vcpu);
>> > }
>> >
>> > + write_sysreg(vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2 | 3 << MDCR_EL2_E2PB_SHIFT, mdcr_el2);
>>
>> There is a _MASK macro that can replace this '3', and is in keeping
>> with the rest of the code.
>>
>> It still remains that it looks like the wrong place to do this, and
>> vcpu_load seems much better. Why should you write to mdcr_el2 on each
>> entry to the guest, since you know whether it has SPE enabled at the
>> point where it gets scheduled?
>
> For nVHE, the only reason we'd want to change E2PB on entry/exit of
> guest
> would be if the host is also using SPE. If the host is using SPE whilst
> the vcpu is 'loaded' but we're not in the guest, then host SPE could
> raise
> an interrupt - we need the E2PB bits to allow access from EL1 (host).

My comment was of course for VHE. nVHE hardly makes use of load/put at
all,
for obvious reasons.

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-15 15:03    [W:0.068 / U:8.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site