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

[Mihai Donțu <mdontu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday 01 August 2016 15:53:27 Mihai Donțu wrote:
> 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.

Err, I meant "vmovq xmm1, xmm1".

-- 
Mihai DONȚU

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel