On 08.03.2022 14:44, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 08.03.22 14:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 08.03.2022 13:56, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> On 08.03.22 13:50, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 08.03.2022 09:39, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>>> On 08.03.22 09:34, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 08.12.2021 16:55, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>>>>> In order to avoid indirect function calls on the hypercall path as >>>>>>> much as possible this series is removing the hypercall function tables >>>>>>> and is replacing the hypercall handler calls via the function array >>>>>>> by automatically generated call macros. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another by-product of generating the call macros is the automatic >>>>>>> generating of the hypercall handler prototypes from the same data base >>>>>>> which is used to generate the macros. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This has the additional advantage of using type safe calls of the >>>>>>> handlers and to ensure related handler (e.g. PV and HVM ones) share >>>>>>> the same prototypes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A very brief performance test (parallel build of the Xen hypervisor >>>>>>> in a 6 vcpu guest) showed a very slim improvement (less than 1%) of >>>>>>> the performance with the patches applied. The test was performed using >>>>>>> a PV and a PVH guest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Changes in V2: >>>>>>> - new patches 6, 14, 15 >>>>>>> - patch 7: support hypercall priorities for faster code >>>>>>> - comments addressed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Changes in V3: >>>>>>> - patches 1 and 4 removed as already applied >>>>>>> - comments addressed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Juergen Gross (13): >>>>>>> xen: move do_vcpu_op() to arch specific code >>>>>>> xen: harmonize return types of hypercall handlers >>>>>>> xen: don't include asm/hypercall.h from C sources >>>>>>> xen: include compat/platform.h from hypercall.h >>>>>>> xen: generate hypercall interface related code >>>>>>> xen: use generated prototypes for hypercall handlers >>>>>>> x86/pv-shim: don't modify hypercall table >>>>>>> xen/x86: don't use hypercall table for calling compat hypercalls >>>>>>> xen/x86: call hypercall handlers via generated macro >>>>>>> xen/arm: call hypercall handlers via generated macro >>>>>>> xen/x86: add hypercall performance counters for hvm, correct pv >>>>>>> xen: drop calls_to_multicall performance counter >>>>>>> tools/xenperf: update hypercall names >>>>>> >>>>>> As it's pretty certain now that parts of this which didn't go in yet will >>>>>> need re-basing, I'm going to drop this from my waiting-to-be-acked >>>>>> folder, >>>>>> expecting a v4 instead. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I was planning to spin that up soon. >>>>> >>>>> The main remaining question is whether we want to switch the return type >>>>> of all hypercalls (or at least the ones common to all archs) not >>>>> requiring to return 64-bit values to "int", as Julien requested. >>>> >>>> After walking through the earlier discussion (Jürgen - thanks for the link) >>>> I'm inclined to say that if Arm wants their return values limited to 32 >>>> bits >>>> (with exceptions where needed), so be it. But on x86 I'd rather not see us >>>> change this aspect. Of course I'd much prefer if architectures didn't >>>> diverge in this regard, yet then again Arm has already diverged in avoiding >>>> the compat layer (in this case I view the divergence as helpful, though, as >>>> it avoids unnecessary headache). >>> >>> How to handle this in common code then? Have a hypercall_ret_t type >>> (exact naming TBD) which is defined as long on x86 and int on Arm? >>> Or use long in the handlers and check the value on Arm side to be a >>> valid 32-bit signed int (this would be cumbersome for the exceptions, >>> though)? >> >> I was thinking along the lines of hypercall_ret_t, yes, but the >> compiler wouldn't be helping with spotting truncation issues (we can't >> reasonably enable the respective warnings, as they would trigger all >> over the place). If we were to go that route, we'd rely on an initial >> audit and subsequent patch review to spot issues. Therefore, >> cumbersome or not, the checking approach may be the more viable one. >> >> Then again Julien may have a better plan in mind; I'd anyway expect >> him to supply details on how he thinks such a transition could be done >> safely, as he was the one to request limiting to 32 bits. > > In order to have some progress I could just leave the Arm side alone > in my series. It could be added later if a solution has been agreed > on. > > What do you think?
I see no issue with this if there's no other dependency on Arm following suit. Jan
