Subject: [PATCH v3 07/22] arm64: KVM: Implement system register save/restore

From: [email-masked] (Mario Smarduch)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 20:56:25 -0800

On 12/11/2015 10:29 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Mario,
> 
> On 11/12/15 03:24, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 12/7/2015 2:53 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Implement the system register save/restore as a direct translation of
>>> the assembly code version.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email-masked]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <[email-masked]>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/Makefile    |  1 +
>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h       |  3 ++
>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/sysreg-sr.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 94 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/sysreg-sr.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/Makefile
>>> index 455dc0a..ec94200 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/Makefile
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/Makefile
>>> @@ -5,3 +5,4 @@
>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += vgic-v2-sr.o
>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += vgic-v3-sr.o
>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += timer-sr.o
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_KVM_ARM_HOST) += sysreg-sr.o
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h
>>> index f213e46..778d56d 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp.h
>>> @@ -38,5 +38,8 @@ void __vgic_v3_restore_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>>  void __timer_save_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>>  void __timer_restore_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>>  
>>> +void __sysreg_save_state(struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt);
>>> +void __sysreg_restore_state(struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt);
>>> +
>>>  #endif /* __ARM64_KVM_HYP_H__ */
>>>  
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/sysreg-sr.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/sysreg-sr.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..add8fcb
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/sysreg-sr.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
>>> +/*
>>> + * Copyright (C) 2012-2015 - ARM Ltd
>>> + * Author: Marc Zyngier <[email-masked]>
>>> + *
>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>> + *
>>> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>>> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
>>> + *
>>> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>>> + * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +#include <linux/compiler.h>
>>> +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
>>> +
>>> +#include <asm/kvm_mmu.h>
>>> +
>>> +#include "hyp.h"
>>> +
>>
>> I looked closer on some other ways to get better performance out of
>> the compiler. This code sequence performs about 35% faster for 
>> __sysreg_save_state(..) for 5000 exits you save about 500mS or 100nS
>> per exit. This is on Juno.
> 
> 35% faster? Really? That's pretty crazy. Was that on the A57 or the A53?

Good question, I bind kvmtool to cpu1, I think that's an A57.
> 
>>
>> register int volatile count asm("r2") = 0;

I meant x2, but this compiles with aarch64 compiler and runs on Juno. Appears
like compiler may have an issue.

> 
> Does this even work on arm64? We don't have an "r2" register...
> 
>>
>> do {
>> ....
>> } while(count);
>>
>> I didn't test the restore function (ran out of time) but I suspect it should be
>> the same. The assembler pretty much uses all the GPRs, (a little too many, using
>> stp to push 4 pairs on the stack and restore) looking at the assembler it all
>> should execute out of order.
> 
> Are you talking about the original implementation here? or the generated
> code out of the compiler? The original implementation didn't push
> anything on the stack (apart from the prologue, but we have the same
> thing in the C implementation).

This is generated compiler code using the do { ... } while code.
> 
> Looking at the compiler output, we have a bunch of mrs/str, one after
> the other - pretty basic. Maybe that gives the CPU some "breathing"
> time, but I have no idea if that's more or less efficient.
> 
> But the main thing is that we can now rely on the compiler to generate
> something that is more or less optimized for a given platform if there
> is such a requirement. We go from something that was cast in stone to
> something that has {some degree of flexibility.

Yes definitely, the do {....} while does bunch of mrs then bunch of str,
probably leads to out of order execution, eliminating the write after read
dependency.
Right now I don't know the compiler option that leads to this optimization.
> 
>>
>> FWIW I gave this a try since compilers like to optimize loops. I used
>> 'cntpct_el0' counter register to measure the intervals.
> 
> It'd be nice to have a measure in terms of cycle, but that's a good
> first approximation.
Will do that in the future. This series performs no worse  then assembler one
and the huge change is the clean C code and other advantages. Optimizations
could maybe be deferred for future revisions.

> Thanks,
> 	M.