[kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/7] powerpc: abstract H_CEDE calls into a sleep() function

[Thomas Huth]

On 17/03/2023 13.36, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> This consolidates several implementations, and it no longer leaves
> MSR[EE] enabled after the decrementer interrupt is handled, but
> rather disables it on return.
> 
> The handler no longer allows a continuous ticking, but rather dec
> has to be re-armed and EE re-enabled (e.g., via H_CEDE hcall) each
> time.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin at gmail.com>
> ---
...
> diff --git a/lib/powerpc/processor.c b/lib/powerpc/processor.c
> index ec85b9d..f1fb50f 100644
> --- a/lib/powerpc/processor.c
> +++ b/lib/powerpc/processor.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@
>   #include <asm/ptrace.h>
>   #include <asm/setup.h>
>   #include <asm/barrier.h>
> +#include <asm/hcall.h>
> +#include <asm/handlers.h>
>   
>   static struct {
>   	void (*func)(struct pt_regs *, void *data);
> @@ -54,3 +56,32 @@ void udelay(uint64_t us)
>   {
>   	delay((us * tb_hz) / 1000000);
>   }
> +
> +void sleep(uint64_t cycles)

When I see a sleep() in a C program, I automatically assume that it's 
parameter is "seconds", so having a sleep() function here that is taking 
cycles as a parameter is confusing. Could you please name the function 
differently?

> +{
> +	uint64_t start, end, now;
> +
> +	start = now = get_tb();
> +	end = start + cycles;
> +
> +	while (end > now) {
> +		uint64_t left = end - now;
> +
> +		/* Could support large decrementer */
> +		if (left > 0x7fffffff)
> +			left = 0x7fffffff;
> +
> +		asm volatile ("mtdec %0" : : "r" (left));
> +		handle_exception(0x900, &dec_handler_oneshot, NULL);
> +		if (hcall(H_CEDE) != H_SUCCESS) {
> +			printf("H_CEDE failed\n");
> +			abort();
> +		}
> +		handle_exception(0x900, NULL, NULL);
> +
> +		if (left < 0x7fffffff)
> +			break;

Shouldn't that be covered by the "end > now" in the while loop condition 
check already?

> +		now = get_tb();
> +	}
> +}

  Thomas