[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/emulate: add support of emulating SSE2 instruction {, v}movd mm, r32/m32 and {, v}movq mm, r64
On Monday 01 August 2016 10:52:12 Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 01/08/16 03:52, Mihai Donțu wrote: > > Found that Windows driver was using a SSE2 instruction MOVD. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Mihai Donțu <mdontu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Picked from the XenServer 7 patch queue, as suggested by Andrew Cooper > > > > Changed since v2: > > * handle the case where the destination is a GPR > > --- > > xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c | 38 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c > > b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c > > index 44de3b6..9f89ada 100644 > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c > > @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ static uint8_t twobyte_table[256] = { > > /* 0x60 - 0x6F */ > > 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, ImplicitOps|ModRM, > > /* 0x70 - 0x7F */ > > - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, ImplicitOps|ModRM, > > + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, ImplicitOps|ModRM, > > ImplicitOps|ModRM, > > /* 0x80 - 0x87 */ > > ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps, > > ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps, ImplicitOps, > > @@ -4409,6 +4409,10 @@ x86_emulate( > > case 0x6f: /* movq mm/m64,mm */ > > /* {,v}movdq{a,u} xmm/m128,xmm */ > > /* vmovdq{a,u} ymm/m256,ymm */ > > + case 0x7e: /* movd mm,r/m32 */ > > + /* movq mm,r/m64 */ > > + /* {,v}movd xmm,r/m32 */ > > + /* {,v}movq xmm,r/m64 */ > > case 0x7f: /* movq mm,mm/m64 */ > > /* {,v}movdq{a,u} xmm,xmm/m128 */ > > /* vmovdq{a,u} ymm,ymm/m256 */ > > @@ -4432,7 +4436,17 @@ x86_emulate( > > host_and_vcpu_must_have(sse2); > > buf[0] = 0x66; /* SSE */ > > get_fpu(X86EMUL_FPU_xmm, &fic); > > - ea.bytes = (b == 0xd6 ? 8 : 16); > > + switch ( b ) > > + { > > + case 0x7e: > > + ea.bytes = 4; > > + break; > > + case 0xd6: > > + ea.bytes = 8; > > + break; > > + default: > > + ea.bytes = 16; > > + } > > break; > > case vex_none: > > if ( b != 0xe7 ) > > @@ -4452,7 +4466,17 @@ x86_emulate( > > ((vex.pfx != vex_66) && (vex.pfx != vex_f3))); > > host_and_vcpu_must_have(avx); > > get_fpu(X86EMUL_FPU_ymm, &fic); > > - ea.bytes = (b == 0xd6 ? 8 : (16 << vex.l)); > > + switch ( b ) > > + { > > + case 0x7e: > > + ea.bytes = 4; > > + break; > > + case 0xd6: > > + ea.bytes = 8; > > + break; > > + default: > > + ea.bytes = 16 << vex.l; > > + } > > } > > if ( ea.type == OP_MEM ) > > { > > @@ -4468,6 +4492,14 @@ x86_emulate( > > vex.b = 1; > > buf[4] &= 0x38; > > } > > + else if ( b == 0x7e ) > > + { > > + /* convert the GPR destination to (%rAX) */ > > + *((unsigned long *)&mmvalp) = (unsigned long)ea.reg; > > + rex_prefix &= ~REX_B; > > + vex.b = 1; > > + buf[4] &= 0x38; > > + } > > Thankyou for doing this. However, looking at it, it has some code in > common with the "ea.type == OP_MEM" clause. > > Would this work? > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c > b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c > index fe594ba..90db067 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c > @@ -4453,16 +4453,25 @@ x86_emulate( > get_fpu(X86EMUL_FPU_ymm, &fic); > ea.bytes = 16 << vex.l; > } > - if ( ea.type == OP_MEM ) > + if ( ea.type == OP_MEM || ea.type == OP_REG ) > { > - /* XXX enable once there is ops->ea() or equivalent > - generate_exception_if((vex.pfx == vex_66) && > - (ops->ea(ea.mem.seg, ea.mem.off) > - & (ea.bytes - 1)), EXC_GP, 0); */ > - if ( b == 0x6f ) > - rc = ops->read(ea.mem.seg, ea.mem.off+0, mmvalp, > - ea.bytes, ctxt); > /* convert memory operand to (%rAX) */ > + > + if ( ea.type == OP_MEM) > + { > + /* XXX enable once there is ops->ea() or equivalent > + generate_exception_if((vex.pfx == vex_66) && > + (ops->ea(ea.mem.seg, ea.mem.off) > + & (ea.bytes - 1)), EXC_GP, 0); */ > + if ( b == 0x6f ) > + rc = ops->read(ea.mem.seg, ea.mem.off+0, mmvalp, > + ea.bytes, ctxt); > + } > + else if ( ea.type == OP_REG ) > + { > + *((unsigned long *)&mmvalp) = (unsigned long)ea.reg; > + } > + > rex_prefix &= ~REX_B; > vex.b = 1; > buf[4] &= 0x38; > > > This is untested, but avoids duplicating this bit of state maniupulation. Your suggestion makes sense, but I'm starting to doubt my initial patch. :-) I'm testing "movq xmm1, xmm1" and noticing that it takes the GPR-handling route and I can't seem to be able to easily prevent it with !(rex_prefix & REX_B), as rex_prefix == 0 and vex.b == 1. I need to take a harder look at how that class of instructions is coded. -- Mihai DONȚU _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |