Add 5-argument handling for paravirt ops patching of PAE functions.
Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
diff -r dbe11208916f include/asm-i386/paravirt.h
--- a/include/asm-i386/paravirt.h Thu Apr 19 11:40:55 2007 -0700
+++ b/include/asm-i386/paravirt.h Thu Apr 19 12:04:16 2007 -0700
@@ -308,10 +308,9 @@ unsigned paravirt_patch_insns(void *site
* return value handling from within these macros. This is fairly
* cumbersome.
*
- * There are 5 sets of PVOP_* macros for dealing with 0-4 arguments.
- * It could be extended to more arguments, but there would be little
- * to be gained from that. For each number of arguments, there are
- * the two VCALL and CALL variants for void and non-void functions.
+ * There are 5 sets of PVOP_* macros for dealing with 0-5 arguments.
+ * For each number of arguments, there are the two VCALL and CALL
+ * variants for void and non-void functions.
*
* When there is a return value, the invoker of the macro must specify
* the return type. The macro then uses sizeof() on that type to
@@ -405,6 +404,21 @@ unsigned paravirt_patch_insns(void *site
"0" ((u32)(arg1)), "1" ((u32)(arg2)), \
"2" ((u32)(arg3)), [_arg4] "mr" ((u32)(arg4)))
+#define PVOP_CALL5(rettype, op, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5) \
+ __PVOP_CALL(rettype, op, \
+ "push %[_arg5]; push %[_arg4];", \
+ "lea 8(%%esp),%%esp;", \
+ "0" ((u32)(arg1)), "1" ((u32)(arg2)), \
+ "2" ((u32)(arg3)), [_arg4] "mr" ((u32)(arg4)), \
+ [_arg5] "mr" ((u32)(arg5)))
+#define PVOP_VCALL5(op, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5) \
+ __PVOP_VCALL(op, \
+ "push %[_arg5]; push %[_arg4];", \
+ "lea 8(%%esp),%%esp;", \
+ "0" ((u32)(arg1)), "1" ((u32)(arg2)), \
+ "2" ((u32)(arg3)), [_arg4] "mr" ((u32)(arg4)), \
+ [_arg5] "mr" ((u32)(arg5)))
+
static inline int paravirt_enabled(void)
{
return paravirt_ops.paravirt_enabled;
@@ -644,11 +658,11 @@ static inline void set_iopl_mask(unsigne
/* The paravirtualized I/O functions */
static inline void slow_down_io(void) {
- paravirt_ops.io_delay();
+ PVOP_VCALL0(io_delay);
#ifdef REALLY_SLOW_IO
- paravirt_ops.io_delay();
- paravirt_ops.io_delay();
- paravirt_ops.io_delay();
+ PVOP_VCALL0(io_delay);
+ PVOP_VCALL0(io_delay);
+ PVOP_VCALL0(io_delay);
#endif
}
@@ -824,8 +838,7 @@ static inline void set_pte_at(struct mm_
static inline void set_pte_at(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval)
{
- /* 5 arg words */
- paravirt_ops.set_pte_at(mm, addr, ptep, pteval);
+ PVOP_VCALL5(mm, addr, ptep, pteval.pte_low, pteval.pte_high);
}
static inline void set_pte_atomic(pte_t *ptep, pte_t pteval)
@@ -836,8 +849,7 @@ static inline void set_pte_present(struc
static inline void set_pte_present(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte)
{
- /* 5 arg words */
- paravirt_ops.set_pte_present(mm, addr, ptep, pte);
+ PVOP_VCALL5(mm, addr, ptep, pte.pte_low, pte.pte_high);
}
static inline void set_pmd(pmd_t *pmdp, pmd_t pmdval)
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 18:52 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:> Add 5-argument handling for paravirt ops patching of PAE functions.This seems like overkill: I don't know of any modules which frob ptes... The rest look fine (I particularly like the getting rid of kernel_rpl: we didn't use it everywhere anyway). Cheers, Rusty.
Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-Apr-19 21:35 UTC
[RFC, PATCH 1/5] Paravirt_ops full patching.patch
Zachary Amsden wrote:> Add 5-argument handling for paravirt ops patching of PAE functions. > > Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com> > > diff -r dbe11208916f include/asm-i386/paravirt.h > --- a/include/asm-i386/paravirt.h Thu Apr 19 11:40:55 2007 -0700 > +++ b/include/asm-i386/paravirt.h Thu Apr 19 12:04:16 2007 -0700 > @@ -308,10 +308,9 @@ unsigned paravirt_patch_insns(void *site > * return value handling from within these macros. This is fairly > * cumbersome. > * > - * There are 5 sets of PVOP_* macros for dealing with 0-4 arguments. > - * It could be extended to more arguments, but there would be little > - * to be gained from that. For each number of arguments, there are > - * the two VCALL and CALL variants for void and non-void functions. > + * There are 5 sets of PVOP_* macros for dealing with 0-5 arguments. > + * For each number of arguments, there are the two VCALL and CALL > + * variants for void and non-void functions. > * > * When there is a return value, the invoker of the macro must specify > * the return type. The macro then uses sizeof() on that type to > @@ -405,6 +404,21 @@ unsigned paravirt_patch_insns(void *site > "0" ((u32)(arg1)), "1" ((u32)(arg2)), \ > "2" ((u32)(arg3)), [_arg4] "mr" ((u32)(arg4))) > > +#define PVOP_CALL5(rettype, op, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5) \ > + __PVOP_CALL(rettype, op, \ > + "push %[_arg5]; push %[_arg4];", \ > + "lea 8(%%esp),%%esp;", \ > + "0" ((u32)(arg1)), "1" ((u32)(arg2)), \ > + "2" ((u32)(arg3)), [_arg4] "mr" ((u32)(arg4)), \ > + [_arg5] "mr" ((u32)(arg5))) >Won't work if arg4 is a stack-relative addressing mode. That was the main reason I avoided 5-arg patching. I guess using "r" as the arg4 constraint would work, but register pressure is getting pretty tight. J
Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-Apr-19 21:43 UTC
[RFC, PATCH 1/5] Paravirt_ops full patching.patch
Zachary Amsden wrote:> - * There are 5 sets of PVOP_* macros for dealing with 0-4 arguments. > - * It could be extended to more arguments, but there would be little > - * to be gained from that. For each number of arguments, there are > - * the two VCALL and CALL variants for void and non-void functions. > + * There are 5 sets of PVOP_* macros for dealing with 0-5 arguments. >s/5/6/ J
Seemingly Similar Threads
- [RFC, PATCH 1/5] Paravirt_ops full patching.patch
- [PATCH] paravirt_ops: Clean up paravirt patchable wrappers
- [PATCH] paravirt_ops: Clean up paravirt patchable wrappers
- [RFC, PATCH 3/5] Paravirt_ops pure functions.patch
- [RFC, PATCH 3/5] Paravirt_ops pure functions.patch