| Message ID | 20230428095533.21747-2-cohuck@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | arm: enable MTE for QEMU + kvm | expand |
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > Extend the 'mte' property for the virt machine to cover KVM as > well. For KVM, we don't allocate tag memory, but instead enable the > capability. > > If MTE has been enabled, we need to disable migration, And I was wondering why I was cc'd in a patch that talks about arm, cpus and architectures O:-) > as we do not > yet have a way to migrate the tags as well. Therefore, MTE will stay > off with KVM unless requested explicitly. > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> > --- > hw/arm/virt.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > target/arm/cpu.c | 9 +++--- > target/arm/cpu.h | 4 +++ > target/arm/kvm.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > target/arm/kvm64.c | 5 ++++ > target/arm/kvm_arm.h | 19 ++++++++++++ > 6 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c > index a89d699f0b76..544a6c5bec8f 100644 > --- a/hw/arm/virt.c > +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c > @@ -2146,7 +2146,7 @@ static void machvirt_init(MachineState *machine) > exit(1); > } > > - if (vms->mte && (kvm_enabled() || hvf_enabled())) { > + if (vms->mte && hvf_enabled()) { > error_report("mach-virt: %s does not support providing " > "MTE to the guest CPU", > current_accel_name()); > @@ -2216,39 +2216,48 @@ static void machvirt_init(MachineState *machine) > } > > if (vms->mte) { > - /* Create the memory region only once, but link to all cpus. */ > - if (!tag_sysmem) { > - /* > - * The property exists only if MemTag is supported. > - * If it is, we must allocate the ram to back that up. > - */ > - if (!object_property_find(cpuobj, "tag-memory")) { > - error_report("MTE requested, but not supported " > - "by the guest CPU"); > - exit(1); > + if (tcg_enabled()) { > + /* Create the memory region only once, but link to all cpus. */ > + if (!tag_sysmem) { > + /* > + * The property exists only if MemTag is supported. > + * If it is, we must allocate the ram to back that up. > + */ > + if (!object_property_find(cpuobj, "tag-memory")) { > + error_report("MTE requested, but not supported " > + "by the guest CPU"); > + exit(1); > + } > + > + tag_sysmem = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1); > + memory_region_init(tag_sysmem, OBJECT(machine), > + "tag-memory", UINT64_MAX / 32); > + > + if (vms->secure) { > + secure_tag_sysmem = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1); > + memory_region_init(secure_tag_sysmem, OBJECT(machine), > + "secure-tag-memory", > + UINT64_MAX / 32); > + > + /* As with ram, secure-tag takes precedence over tag. */ > + memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(secure_tag_sysmem, > + 0, tag_sysmem, -1); > + } > } Pardon my ignorance here, but to try to help with migration. How is this mte tag stored? - 1 array of 8bits per page of memory - 1 array of 64bits per page of memory - whatever Lets asume that it is 1 byte per page. For the explanation it don't matter, only matters that it is an array of things that are one for each page. What I arrived for migration the 1st time that I looked at this problem is that you can "abuse" multifd and call it a day. In multifd propper you just send in each page: - 1 array of page addresses - 1 array of pages that correspond to the previous addresses So my suggestion is just to send another array: - 1 array of page addresses - 1 array of page tags that correspond to the previous one - 1 array of pages that correspond to the previous addresses You put compatiblity marks here and there checking that you are using mte (and the same version) in both sides and you call that a day. Notice that this requires the series (still not upstream but already on the list) that move the zero page detection to the multifd thread, because I am assuming that zero pages also have tags (yes, it was not a very impressive guess). What do you think? Does this work for you? What I would need for kvm/tcg would be some way of doing: - get_the_mte_tag_of_page(page_id) - set_the_mte_tag_of_page(page_id) Now you need to tell me if I should do this for each page, or use some kind of scatter-gather function that allows me to receive the mte tags from an array of pages. You could pass this information when we are searching for dirty pages, but it is going to be complicated doing that (basically we only pass the dirty page id, nothing else). Doing this in normal precopy can also be done, but it would be an exercise in masochism. Another question, if you are using MTE, all pages have MTE, right? Or there are other exceptions? Sorry for my ignorance on this matter. Later, Juan.
On 4/28/23 18:50, Juan Quintela wrote: > Pardon my ignorance here, but to try to help with migration. How is > this mte tag stored? > - 1 array of 8bits per page of memory > - 1 array of 64bits per page of memory > - whatever > > Lets asume that it is 1 byte per page. For the explanation it don't > matter, only matters that it is an array of things that are one for each > page. Not that it matters, as you say, but for concreteness, 1 4-bit tag per 16 bytes, packed, so 128 bytes per 4k page. > So my suggestion is just to send another array: > > - 1 array of page addresses > - 1 array of page tags that correspond to the previous one > - 1 array of pages that correspond to the previous addresses > > You put compatiblity marks here and there checking that you are using > mte (and the same version) in both sides and you call that a day. Sounds reasonable. > Notice that this requires the series (still not upstream but already on > the list) that move the zero page detection to the multifd thread, > because I am assuming that zero pages also have tags (yes, it was not a > very impressive guess). Correct. "Proper" zero detection would include checking the tags as well. Zero tags are what you get from the kernel on a new allocation. > Now you need to tell me if I should do this for each page, or use some > kind of scatter-gather function that allows me to receive the mte tags > from an array of pages. That is going to depend on if KVM exposes an interface with which to bulk-set tags (STGM, "store tag multiple", is only available to kernel mode for some reason), a-la arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c (which copies the page data then the page tags separately). For the moment, KVM believes that memcpy from userspace is sufficient, which means we'll want a custom memcpy using STGP to store 16 bytes along with its tag. > You could pass this information when we are searching for dirty pages, > but it is going to be complicated doing that (basically we only pass the > dirty page id, nothing else). A page can be dirtied by changing nothing but a tag. So we cannot of course send tags "early", they must come with the data. I'm not 100% sure I understood your question here. > Another question, if you are using MTE, all pages have MTE, right? > Or there are other exceptions? No such systems are built yet, so we won't know what corner cases the host system will have to cope with, but I believe as written so far all pages must have tags when MTE is enabled by KVM. r~
On Mon, May 01 2023, Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote: > On 4/28/23 18:50, Juan Quintela wrote: >> Pardon my ignorance here, but to try to help with migration. How is >> this mte tag stored? >> - 1 array of 8bits per page of memory >> - 1 array of 64bits per page of memory >> - whatever >> >> Lets asume that it is 1 byte per page. For the explanation it don't >> matter, only matters that it is an array of things that are one for each >> page. > > Not that it matters, as you say, but for concreteness, 1 4-bit tag per 16 bytes, packed, > so 128 bytes per 4k page. > >> So my suggestion is just to send another array: >> >> - 1 array of page addresses >> - 1 array of page tags that correspond to the previous one >> - 1 array of pages that correspond to the previous addresses >> >> You put compatiblity marks here and there checking that you are using >> mte (and the same version) in both sides and you call that a day. > > Sounds reasonable. Yes, something like that sounds reasonable as an interface. > >> Notice that this requires the series (still not upstream but already on >> the list) that move the zero page detection to the multifd thread, >> because I am assuming that zero pages also have tags (yes, it was not a >> very impressive guess). > > Correct. "Proper" zero detection would include checking the tags as well. > Zero tags are what you get from the kernel on a new allocation. > >> Now you need to tell me if I should do this for each page, or use some >> kind of scatter-gather function that allows me to receive the mte tags >> from an array of pages. > > That is going to depend on if KVM exposes an interface with which to bulk-set tags (STGM, > "store tag multiple", is only available to kernel mode for some reason), a-la > arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c (which copies the page data then the page tags separately). > > For the moment, KVM believes that memcpy from userspace is sufficient, which means we'll > want a custom memcpy using STGP to store 16 bytes along with its tag. > >> You could pass this information when we are searching for dirty pages, >> but it is going to be complicated doing that (basically we only pass the >> dirty page id, nothing else). > > A page can be dirtied by changing nothing but a tag. > So we cannot of course send tags "early", they must come with the data. > I'm not 100% sure I understood your question here. Last time MTE migration came up, we thought that we would need to go with an uffd extension (page + extra data) to handle the postcopy case properly (i.e. use some kind of array for precopy, and that interface extension for postcopy.) TBH, I'm not sure if multifd makes any difference here. > >> Another question, if you are using MTE, all pages have MTE, right? >> Or there are other exceptions? > > No such systems are built yet, so we won't know what corner cases the host system will > have to cope with, but I believe as written so far all pages must have tags when MTE is > enabled by KVM. Has anyone been able to access a real system with MTE? (All the systems where I had hoped that MTE would be available didn't have MTE in the end so far, so I'd be interested to hear if anybody else already got to play with one.) Honestly, I don't want to even try to test migration if I only have access to MTE on the FVP...
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 01 2023, Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 4/28/23 18:50, Juan Quintela wrote: >>> Pardon my ignorance here, but to try to help with migration. How is >>> this mte tag stored? >>> - 1 array of 8bits per page of memory >>> - 1 array of 64bits per page of memory >>> - whatever >>> >>> Lets asume that it is 1 byte per page. For the explanation it don't >>> matter, only matters that it is an array of things that are one for each >>> page. >> >> Not that it matters, as you say, but for concreteness, 1 4-bit tag per 16 bytes, packed, >> so 128 bytes per 4k page. >> >>> So my suggestion is just to send another array: >>> >>> - 1 array of page addresses >>> - 1 array of page tags that correspond to the previous one >>> - 1 array of pages that correspond to the previous addresses >>> >>> You put compatiblity marks here and there checking that you are using >>> mte (and the same version) in both sides and you call that a day. >> >> Sounds reasonable. > > Yes, something like that sounds reasonable as an interface. Ok. >>> Notice that this requires the series (still not upstream but already on >>> the list) that move the zero page detection to the multifd thread, >>> because I am assuming that zero pages also have tags (yes, it was not a >>> very impressive guess). >> >> Correct. "Proper" zero detection would include checking the tags as well. >> Zero tags are what you get from the kernel on a new allocation. That was a different thing. On precopy, we handle zero page one way and non_zero page other way. On upstream multifd, we detect and send zero page on the migration thread, and everything else on the migration threads. With my patches (on list) it send both zero and non-zero pages through multifd. My proposal will be that we send the 128bytes/page for every page, included zero pages. Here I mean zero page a page that is full of zeros, independently of the tag. >> A page can be dirtied by changing nothing but a tag. I hope/expect that the dirty bitmap reflects that. >> So we cannot of course send tags "early", they must come with the data. >> I'm not 100% sure I understood your question here. > > Last time MTE migration came up, we thought that we would need to go > with an uffd extension (page + extra data) to handle the postcopy case > properly (i.e. use some kind of array for precopy, and that interface > extension for postcopy.) TBH, I'm not sure if multifd makes any > difference here. uffd is a completely different beast, and I agree with you. I was meaning here the precopy/multifd case. >>> Another question, if you are using MTE, all pages have MTE, right? >>> Or there are other exceptions? >> >> No such systems are built yet, so we won't know what corner cases the host system will >> have to cope with, but I believe as written so far all pages must have tags when MTE is >> enabled by KVM. > > Has anyone been able to access a real system with MTE? (All the systems > where I had hoped that MTE would be available didn't have MTE in the end > so far, so I'd be interested to hear if anybody else already got to play > with one.) Honestly, I don't want to even try to test migration if I only > have access to MTE on the FVP... So here we are. I have seen the future. And it is very blurred. O:-) Later, Juan.
On 5/2/23 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote: > Has anyone been able to access a real system with MTE? (All the systems > where I had hoped that MTE would be available didn't have MTE in the end > so far, so I'd be interested to hear if anybody else already got to play > with one.) Honestly, I don't want to even try to test migration if I only > have access to MTE on the FVP... Well there's always MTE on QEMU with TCG. :-) But I agree that while it's better than FVP, it's still slow, and difficult to test anything at scale. I have no objection to getting non-migratable MTE on KVM in before attempting to solve migration. r~
On Tue, May 02 2023, Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote: > On 5/2/23 10:03, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> Has anyone been able to access a real system with MTE? (All the systems >> where I had hoped that MTE would be available didn't have MTE in the end >> so far, so I'd be interested to hear if anybody else already got to play >> with one.) Honestly, I don't want to even try to test migration if I only >> have access to MTE on the FVP... > > Well there's always MTE on QEMU with TCG. :-) Which actually worked very nicely to verify my test setup :) > > But I agree that while it's better than FVP, it's still slow, and difficult to test > anything at scale. I have no objection to getting non-migratable MTE on KVM in before > attempting to solve migration. I'm wondering whether we should block migration with MTE enabled in general... OTOH, people probably don't commonly try to migrate with tcg, unless they are testing something?
On 5/4/23 16:01, Cornelia Huck wrote: > I'm wondering whether we should block migration with MTE enabled in > general... OTOH, people probably don't commonly try to migrate with tcg, > unless they are testing something? Yes, savevm/loadvm is an extremely useful tcg debugging tool. r~
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 at 10:55, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > > Extend the 'mte' property for the virt machine to cover KVM as > well. For KVM, we don't allocate tag memory, but instead enable the > capability. > > If MTE has been enabled, we need to disable migration, as we do not > yet have a way to migrate the tags as well. Therefore, MTE will stay > off with KVM unless requested explicitly. > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> So this looks OK to me -- we don't handle migration but we do install a blocker so we can deal with that later. Richard, is there anything else here that means it needs more work? I think I'm OK giving it Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> and will pick it up for target-arm.next later this week unless anybody raises any issues. thanks -- PMM
On 4/28/23 02:55, Cornelia Huck wrote: > Extend the 'mte' property for the virt machine to cover KVM as > well. For KVM, we don't allocate tag memory, but instead enable the > capability. > > If MTE has been enabled, we need to disable migration, as we do not > yet have a way to migrate the tags as well. Therefore, MTE will stay > off with KVM unless requested explicitly. > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck<cohuck@redhat.com> > --- > hw/arm/virt.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > target/arm/cpu.c | 9 +++--- > target/arm/cpu.h | 4 +++ > target/arm/kvm.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > target/arm/kvm64.c | 5 ++++ > target/arm/kvm_arm.h | 19 ++++++++++++ > 6 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> r~
diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c index a89d699f0b76..544a6c5bec8f 100644 --- a/hw/arm/virt.c +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c @@ -2146,7 +2146,7 @@ static void machvirt_init(MachineState *machine) exit(1); } - if (vms->mte && (kvm_enabled() || hvf_enabled())) { + if (vms->mte && hvf_enabled()) { error_report("mach-virt: %s does not support providing " "MTE to the guest CPU", current_accel_name()); @@ -2216,39 +2216,48 @@ static void machvirt_init(MachineState *machine) } if (vms->mte) { - /* Create the memory region only once, but link to all cpus. */ - if (!tag_sysmem) { - /* - * The property exists only if MemTag is supported. - * If it is, we must allocate the ram to back that up. - */ - if (!object_property_find(cpuobj, "tag-memory")) { - error_report("MTE requested, but not supported " - "by the guest CPU"); - exit(1); + if (tcg_enabled()) { + /* Create the memory region only once, but link to all cpus. */ + if (!tag_sysmem) { + /* + * The property exists only if MemTag is supported. + * If it is, we must allocate the ram to back that up. + */ + if (!object_property_find(cpuobj, "tag-memory")) { + error_report("MTE requested, but not supported " + "by the guest CPU"); + exit(1); + } + + tag_sysmem = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1); + memory_region_init(tag_sysmem, OBJECT(machine), + "tag-memory", UINT64_MAX / 32); + + if (vms->secure) { + secure_tag_sysmem = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1); + memory_region_init(secure_tag_sysmem, OBJECT(machine), + "secure-tag-memory", + UINT64_MAX / 32); + + /* As with ram, secure-tag takes precedence over tag. */ + memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(secure_tag_sysmem, + 0, tag_sysmem, -1); + } } - tag_sysmem = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1); - memory_region_init(tag_sysmem, OBJECT(machine), - "tag-memory", UINT64_MAX / 32); - + object_property_set_link(cpuobj, "tag-memory", + OBJECT(tag_sysmem), &error_abort); if (vms->secure) { - secure_tag_sysmem = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1); - memory_region_init(secure_tag_sysmem, OBJECT(machine), - "secure-tag-memory", UINT64_MAX / 32); - - /* As with ram, secure-tag takes precedence over tag. */ - memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(secure_tag_sysmem, 0, - tag_sysmem, -1); + object_property_set_link(cpuobj, "secure-tag-memory", + OBJECT(secure_tag_sysmem), + &error_abort); } - } - - object_property_set_link(cpuobj, "tag-memory", OBJECT(tag_sysmem), - &error_abort); - if (vms->secure) { - object_property_set_link(cpuobj, "secure-tag-memory", - OBJECT(secure_tag_sysmem), - &error_abort); + } else if (kvm_enabled()) { + if (!kvm_arm_mte_supported()) { + error_report("MTE requested, but not supported by KVM"); + exit(1); + } + kvm_arm_enable_mte(cpuobj, &error_abort); } } diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.c b/target/arm/cpu.c index 5182ed0c9113..f6a88e52ac21 100644 --- a/target/arm/cpu.c +++ b/target/arm/cpu.c @@ -1480,6 +1480,7 @@ void arm_cpu_post_init(Object *obj) qdev_prop_allow_set_link_before_realize, OBJ_PROP_LINK_STRONG); } + cpu->has_mte = true; } #endif } @@ -1616,7 +1617,7 @@ static void arm_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) } if (cpu->tag_memory) { error_setg(errp, - "Cannot enable %s when guest CPUs has MTE enabled", + "Cannot enable %s when guest CPUs has tag memory enabled", current_accel_name()); return; } @@ -1996,10 +1997,10 @@ static void arm_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) } #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY - if (cpu->tag_memory == NULL && cpu_isar_feature(aa64_mte, cpu)) { + if (!cpu->has_mte && cpu_isar_feature(aa64_mte, cpu)) { /* - * Disable the MTE feature bits if we do not have tag-memory - * provided by the machine. + * Disable the MTE feature bits if we do not have the feature + * setup by the machine. */ cpu->isar.id_aa64pfr1 = FIELD_DP64(cpu->isar.id_aa64pfr1, ID_AA64PFR1, MTE, 0); diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h index d469a2637b32..c3463e39bcdf 100644 --- a/target/arm/cpu.h +++ b/target/arm/cpu.h @@ -935,6 +935,9 @@ struct ArchCPU { */ uint32_t psci_conduit; + /* CPU has Memory Tag Extension */ + bool has_mte; + /* For v8M, initial value of the Secure VTOR */ uint32_t init_svtor; /* For v8M, initial value of the Non-secure VTOR */ @@ -1053,6 +1056,7 @@ struct ArchCPU { bool prop_pauth; bool prop_pauth_impdef; bool prop_lpa2; + OnOffAuto prop_mte; /* DCZ blocksize, in log_2(words), ie low 4 bits of DCZID_EL0 */ uint32_t dcz_blocksize; diff --git a/target/arm/kvm.c b/target/arm/kvm.c index 84da49332c4b..9553488ecd13 100644 --- a/target/arm/kvm.c +++ b/target/arm/kvm.c @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ #include "hw/boards.h" #include "hw/irq.h" #include "qemu/log.h" +#include "migration/blocker.h" const KVMCapabilityInfo kvm_arch_required_capabilities[] = { KVM_CAP_LAST_INFO @@ -1064,3 +1065,37 @@ bool kvm_arch_cpu_check_are_resettable(void) void kvm_arch_accel_class_init(ObjectClass *oc) { } + +void kvm_arm_enable_mte(Object *cpuobj, Error **errp) +{ + static bool tried_to_enable; + static bool succeeded_to_enable; + Error *mte_migration_blocker = NULL; + int ret; + + if (!tried_to_enable) { + /* + * MTE on KVM is enabled on a per-VM basis (and retrying doesn't make + * sense), and we only want a single migration blocker as well. + */ + tried_to_enable = true; + + ret = kvm_vm_enable_cap(kvm_state, KVM_CAP_ARM_MTE, 0); + if (ret) { + error_setg_errno(errp, -ret, "Failed to enable KVM_CAP_ARM_MTE"); + return; + } + + /* TODO: add proper migration support with MTE enabled */ + error_setg(&mte_migration_blocker, + "Live migration disabled due to MTE enabled"); + if (migrate_add_blocker(mte_migration_blocker, errp)) { + error_free(mte_migration_blocker); + return; + } + succeeded_to_enable = true; + } + if (succeeded_to_enable) { + object_property_set_bool(cpuobj, "has_mte", true, NULL); + } +} diff --git a/target/arm/kvm64.c b/target/arm/kvm64.c index 810db33ccbd6..1893f3879363 100644 --- a/target/arm/kvm64.c +++ b/target/arm/kvm64.c @@ -756,6 +756,11 @@ bool kvm_arm_steal_time_supported(void) return kvm_check_extension(kvm_state, KVM_CAP_STEAL_TIME); } +bool kvm_arm_mte_supported(void) +{ + return kvm_check_extension(kvm_state, KVM_CAP_ARM_MTE); +} + QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(KVM_ARM64_SVE_VQ_MIN != 1); uint32_t kvm_arm_sve_get_vls(CPUState *cs) diff --git a/target/arm/kvm_arm.h b/target/arm/kvm_arm.h index 330fbe5c7220..2083547bf604 100644 --- a/target/arm/kvm_arm.h +++ b/target/arm/kvm_arm.h @@ -313,6 +313,13 @@ bool kvm_arm_pmu_supported(void); */ bool kvm_arm_sve_supported(void); +/** + * kvm_arm_mte_supported: + * + * Returns: true if KVM can enable MTE, and false otherwise. + */ +bool kvm_arm_mte_supported(void); + /** * kvm_arm_get_max_vm_ipa_size: * @ms: Machine state handle @@ -377,6 +384,8 @@ void kvm_arm_pvtime_init(CPUState *cs, uint64_t ipa); int kvm_arm_set_irq(int cpu, int irqtype, int irq, int level); +void kvm_arm_enable_mte(Object *cpuobj, Error **errp); + #else /* @@ -403,6 +412,11 @@ static inline bool kvm_arm_steal_time_supported(void) return false; } +static inline bool kvm_arm_mte_supported(void) +{ + return false; +} + /* * These functions should never actually be called without KVM support. */ @@ -451,6 +465,11 @@ static inline uint32_t kvm_arm_sve_get_vls(CPUState *cs) g_assert_not_reached(); } +static inline void kvm_arm_enable_mte(Object *cpuobj, Error **errp) +{ + g_assert_not_reached(); +} + #endif static inline const char *gic_class_name(void)
Extend the 'mte' property for the virt machine to cover KVM as well. For KVM, we don't allocate tag memory, but instead enable the capability. If MTE has been enabled, we need to disable migration, as we do not yet have a way to migrate the tags as well. Therefore, MTE will stay off with KVM unless requested explicitly. Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> --- hw/arm/virt.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- target/arm/cpu.c | 9 +++--- target/arm/cpu.h | 4 +++ target/arm/kvm.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++ target/arm/kvm64.c | 5 ++++ target/arm/kvm_arm.h | 19 ++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)