On 15.07.2013, at 16:04, Anup Patel wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Alexander Graf agraf@suse.de wrote:
On 15.07.2013, at 14:56, Anup Patel wrote:
Hi Marc,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyngier@arm.com wrote:
Hi Anup,
On 15/07/13 12:46, Anup Patel wrote:
This patch allows us to have X-Gene guest VCPU when using KVM arm64 on APM X-Gene host.
We add KVM_ARM_TARGET_XGENE_V8 for X-Gene compatible guest VCPU and we return KVM_ARM_TARGET_XGENE_V8 in kvm_target_cpu() when running on X-Gene host.
Signed-off-by: Anup Patel anup.patel@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar pranavkumar@linaro.org
arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 3 ++- arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------ arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs_generic_v8.c | 3 +++ 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h index 5031f42..8194707 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h @@ -55,8 +55,9 @@ struct kvm_regs { #define KVM_ARM_TARGET_AEM_V8 0 #define KVM_ARM_TARGET_FOUNDATION_V8 1 #define KVM_ARM_TARGET_CORTEX_A57 2 +#define KVM_ARM_TARGET_XGENE_V8 3
-#define KVM_ARM_NUM_TARGETS 3 +#define KVM_ARM_NUM_TARGETS 4
/* KVM_ARM_SET_DEVICE_ADDR ioctl id encoding */ #define KVM_ARM_DEVICE_TYPE_SHIFT 0 diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c index 2c3ff67..e99b0a5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c @@ -207,19 +207,29 @@ int __attribute_const__ kvm_target_cpu(void) unsigned long implementor = read_cpuid_implementor(); unsigned long part_number = read_cpuid_part_number();
if (implementor != ARM_CPU_IMP_ARM)return -EINVAL;switch (part_number) {case ARM_CPU_PART_AEM_V8:return KVM_ARM_TARGET_AEM_V8;case ARM_CPU_PART_FOUNDATION:return KVM_ARM_TARGET_FOUNDATION_V8;case ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A57:/* Currently handled by the generic backend */return KVM_ARM_TARGET_CORTEX_A57;
switch (implementor) {case ARM_CPU_IMP_ARM:switch (part_number) {case ARM_CPU_PART_AEM_V8:return KVM_ARM_TARGET_AEM_V8;case ARM_CPU_PART_FOUNDATION:return KVM_ARM_TARGET_FOUNDATION_V8;case ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A57:return KVM_ARM_TARGET_CORTEX_A57;default:return -EINVAL;}break;case ARM_CPU_IMP_APM:switch (part_number) {case APM_CPU_PART_POTENZA:return KVM_ARM_TARGET_XGENE_V8;Why don't we have KVM_ARM_TARGET_XGENE_POTENZA (or something similar) instead? I don't expect all the X-Gene CPUs to be the same forever...
OK, I will rename it to KVM_ARM_TARGET_XGENE_POTENZA.
Does this mean that with every new ARM64 CPU we will have to add a new target for KVM ARM64 ?
Only for different core types, no? Any Cortex-A57 should still behave the same.
If so then I think the list of targets will grow very fast.
I also realized that if we add a new target type in KVM ARM64 then we have to also update KVMTOOL to use the new target else KVMTOOL fails to recognize the target provided by KVM ARM64.
Right. It might make sense to have a fetch mechanism for the host cpu part. So you can ask KVM for the host cpu type and pass that back in here.
Do you think we can have KVM_ARM_TARGET_xxx to represent a common target for a family of CPUs from given ARM64 vendor?
Anything that is compatible is compatible :). I don't know the product roadmaps for X-Gene cores, but you will want to make the field here as coarse grained as possible, while maintaining the guarantee that a guest still behaves the same.
Actually, I don't see X-Gene cores changing in-terms of register interface available to EL1 and EL0 in near future. This is the reason why I had named the target as KVM_ARM_TARGET_XGENE_V8.
So where does the v8 come from? Is there any non-ARMv8 XGene? If not, this is v1 really, right? What if we just call it v1 instead? Then when a new core comes up that needs different treatment, we create a new target.
But this really is Marc's call.
Alex