[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 5/8] arm/vm_event: get/set registers
Hi,
On 01/06/16 09:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.05.16 at 18:28, <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 2016 01:48, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30.05.16 at 21:47, <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30.05.16 at 00:37, <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+struct vm_event_regs_arm32 {
+ uint32_t r0_usr;
+ uint32_t r1_usr;
+ uint32_t r2_usr;
+ uint32_t r3_usr;
+ uint32_t r4_usr;
+ uint32_t r5_usr;
+ uint32_t r6_usr;
+ uint32_t r7_usr;
+ uint32_t r8_usr;
+ uint32_t r9_usr;
+ uint32_t r10_usr;
+ uint32_t r12_usr;
+ uint32_t lr_usr;
+ uint32_t fp;
+ uint32_t pc;
+ uint32_t sp_usr;
+ uint32_t sp_svc;
+ uint32_t spsr_svc;
+};
It would seem more natural for the "ordinary" registers to be
arranged in the numerical sequence, i.e. fp, r12, sp, lr, pc.
Not sure I follow.
For one it is quite natural for someone looking at a sequence of
register values to assume / expect them to be in natural order.
And then, having them in natural (numeric) order allows e.g.
extracting the register identifying bits from an instruction to use
them as an array index into (part of) this structure.
(For some background: I've been bitten a number of times by
people sorting x86 registers alphabetically instead or naturally,
i.e. EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX instead of EAX, ECX, EDX, EBX).
I see, however I believe that would be a very careless use of this struct
from the user as the register sizes are not even necessarily match the
architecture. For example we only define the 64bit x86 registers, so trying
to access it as an array of 32bit registers wouldn't work at all. Plus we
are not doing a full set of registers, and I rather not imply that every
element in the "natural sequence" is present. It may be, it may be not.
Once an ABI is set in stone, and if that ABI allows for optimizations
(by consumers) like the one mentioned, I don't think this would be
careless use. The resulting code is very clearly much more efficient
than e.g. a switch() statement with a case label for each and every
register. Well, yes, I already hear the "memory is cheap and hence
code size doesn't matter" argument, but as said elsewhere quite
recently I don't buy this.
I agree with Jan here.
ARM64 has 31 general purposes registers (x0-x30). The switch to find a
register based on the index will be quite big.
If you order the register and provide all the general purposes registers
(x0 - x30), you will be able to replace by a single line (for instance
see select_user_reg in arch/arm/traps.c).
This will also likely speed up your introspection application.
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
