[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v3 19/22] x86emul: support TILELOADD{,T1} and TILESTORE
On 22/04/2021 16:11, Jan Beulich wrote: On 22.04.2021 17:06, Jan Beulich wrote:On 22.04.2021 16:55, Jan Beulich wrote:+ do { + /* Limit rows to just as many to cover the next one to access. */ + cfg->start_row = i; + cfg->rows[modrm_reg] = i + 1; + write_tilecfg(cfg); + + if ( vex.pfx != vex_f3 ) + rc = ops->read(ea.mem.seg, + truncate_ea(ea.mem.off + i * ea.val), + row, cfg->colsb[modrm_reg], ctxt); + + invoke_stub("", "", "=m" (dummy) : "a" (row)); + + if ( vex.pfx == vex_f3 ) + rc = ops->write(ea.mem.seg, + truncate_ea(ea.mem.off + i * ea.val), + row, cfg->colsb[modrm_reg], ctxt); + } while ( rc == X86EMUL_OKAY && ++i < n );in principle tiles could have rows larger than 64 bytes without any separate CPUID feature flag qualifying this. struct hvm_mmio_cache, otoh, is having a fixed-size 64-byte buffer right now. Therefore I'm wondering whether we'd want to switch to dynamically allocating that to the minimum of 64 bytes and the size of a tile row, just as a precautionary measure.Actually, as it occurred to me only after sending, enlarging tile size would under almost all circumstances require a new XSTATE component, which we'd need to enable first. I consider it less likely that they'd permit a wider range of layouts without increasing tile size. But we might still want to play safe. I guess on-demand reallocation to a larger size would be fine. Certainly we want to be sure we don't overflow. Paul Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |