[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 06:59:08 Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 01.08.16 at 14:53, <mdontu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > You obviously need to distinguish the two kinds of register sources/ > destinations: GPRs need suitable re-writing of the instruction (without > having looked at the most recent version of the patch yet I btw doubt > converting register to memory operands is the most efficient model), > while MMs, XMMs, and YMMs can retain their register encoding. Regarding efficiency, I'm not married with the approach I've proposed. If you can give me a few more hints, I can give it a try. -- Mihai DONȚU _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |