[PATCH 2/2] KVM: PPC: Book3E: Get vcpu's last instruction for emulation

[Scott Wood]

On 07/10/2013 05:15:09 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 10.07.2013, at 02:06, Scott Wood wrote:
> 
> > On 07/09/2013 04:44:24 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 09.07.2013, at 20:46, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> > I suspect that tlbsx is faster, or at worst similar.  And unlike  
> comparing tlbsx to lwepx (not counting a fix for the threading  
> problem), we don't already have code to search the guest TLB, so  
> testing would be more work.
> >> We have code to walk the guest TLB for TLB misses. This really is  
> just the TLB miss search without host TLB injection.
> >> So let's say we're using the shadow TLB. The guest always has its  
> say 64 TLB entries that it can count on - we never evict anything by  
> accident, because we store all of the 64 entries in our guest TLB  
> cache. When the guest faults at an address, the first thing we do is  
> we check the cache whether we have that page already mapped.
> >> However, with this method we now have 2 enumeration methods for  
> guest TLB searches. We have the tlbsx one which searches the host TLB  
> and we have our guest TLB cache. The guest TLB cache might still  
> contain an entry for an address that we already invalidated on the  
> host. Would that impose a problem?
> >> I guess not because we're swizzling the exit code around to  
> instead be an instruction miss which means we restore the TLB entry  
> into our host's TLB so that when we resume, we land here and the  
> tlbsx hits. But it feels backwards.
> >
> > Any better way?  Searching the guest TLB won't work for the LRAT  
> case, so we'd need to have this logic around anyway.  We shouldn't  
> add a second codepath unless it's a clear performance gain -- and  
> again, I suspect it would be the opposite, especially if the entry is  
> not in TLB0 or in one of the first few entries searched in TLB1.  The  
> tlbsx miss case is not what we should optimize for.
> 
> Hrm.
> 
> So let's redesign this thing theoretically. We would have an exit  
> that requires an instruction fetch. We would override  
> kvmppc_get_last_inst() to always do kvmppc_ld_inst(). That one can  
> fail because it can't find the TLB entry in the host TLB. When it  
> fails, we have to abort the emulation and resume the guest at the  
> same IP.
> 
> Now the guest gets the TLB miss, we populate, go back into the guest.  
> The guest hits the emulation failure again. We go back to  
> kvmppc_ld_inst() which succeeds this time and we can emulate the  
> instruction.

That's pretty much what this patch does, except that it goes  
immediately to the TLB miss code rather than having the extra  
round-trip back to the guest.  Is there any benefit from adding that  
extra round-trip?  Rewriting the exit type instead doesn't seem that  
bad...

> I think this works. Just make sure that the gateway to the  
> instruction fetch is kvmppc_get_last_inst() and make that failable.  
> Then the difference between looking for the TLB entry in the host's  
> TLB or in the guest's TLB cache is hopefully negligible.

I don't follow here.  What does this have to do with looking in the  
guest TLB?

-Scott