Message-ID: <20140519161811.5a17bc66@bee>
Date:	Mon, 19 May 2014 16:18:11 +0200
From:	Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
Cc:	qemu-devel@...gnu.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
	Andreas Faerber <afaerber@...e.de>,
	"Jason J. Herne" <jjherne@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 RFC 6/6] KVM: s390: add cpu model support

On Mon, 19 May 2014 13:48:08 +0200
Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de> wrote:

> 
> On 19.05.14 12:53, Michael Mueller wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 May 2014 22:31:12 +0200
> > Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On 16.05.14 17:39, Michael Mueller wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:08:24 +0200
> >>> Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 13.05.14 16:58, Michael Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> This patch enables cpu model support in kvm/s390 via the vm attribute
> >>>>> interface.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> During KVM initialization, the host properties cpuid, IBC value and the
> >>>>> facility list are stored in the architecture specific cpu model structure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> During vcpu setup, these properties are taken to initialize the related SIE
> >>>>> state. This mechanism allows to adjust the properties from user space and thus
> >>>>> to implement different selectable cpu models.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch uses the IBC functionality to block instructions that have not
> >>>>> been implemented at the requested CPU type and GA level compared to the
> >>>>> full host capability.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Userspace has to initialize the cpu model before vcpu creation. A cpu model
> >>>>> change of running vcpus is currently not possible.
> >>>> Why is this VM global? It usually fits a lot better modeling wise when
> >>>> CPU types are vcpu properties.
> >>> It simplifies the code substantially because it inherently guarantees the vcpus being
> >>> configured identical. In addition, there is no S390 hardware implementation containing
> >>> inhomogeneous processor types. Thus I consider the properties as machine specific.
> >>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>     arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h |   4 +-
> >>>>>     arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h |  23 ++++++
> >>>>>     arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 146 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>>>     arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h         |   1 +
> >>>>>     4 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>> index b4751ba..6b826cb 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>> @@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
> >>>>>     	atomic_t cpuflags;		/* 0x0000 */
> >>>>>     	__u32 : 1;			/* 0x0004 */
> >>>>>     	__u32 prefix : 18;
> >>>>> -	__u32 : 13;
> >>>>> +	__u32 : 1;
> >>>>> +	__u32 ibc : 12;
> >>>>>     	__u8	reserved08[4];		/* 0x0008 */
> >>>>>     #define PROG_IN_SIE (1<<0)
> >>>>>     	__u32	prog0c;			/* 0x000c */
> >>>>> @@ -418,6 +419,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_cpu_model {
> >>>>>     	unsigned long *sie_fac;
> >>>>>     	struct cpuid cpu_id;
> >>>>>     	unsigned long *fac_list;
> >>>>> +	unsigned short ibc;
> >>>>>     };
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>     struct kvm_arch{
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>>> index 313100a..82ef1b5 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>>> @@ -58,12 +58,35 @@ struct kvm_s390_io_adapter_req {
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>     /* kvm attr_group  on vm fd */
> >>>>>     #define KVM_S390_VM_MEM_CTRL		0
> >>>>> +#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_MODEL		1
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>     /* kvm attributes for mem_ctrl */
> >>>>>     #define KVM_S390_VM_MEM_ENABLE_CMMA	0
> >>>>>     #define KVM_S390_VM_MEM_CLR_CMMA	1
> >>>>>     #define KVM_S390_VM_MEM_CLR_PAGES	2
> >>>>>     
> >>>>> +/* kvm attributes for cpu_model */
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +/* the s390 processor related attributes are r/w */
> >>>>> +#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_PROCESSOR	0
> >>>>> +struct kvm_s390_vm_cpu_processor {
> >>>>> +	__u64 cpuid;
> >>>>> +	__u16 ibc;
> >>>>> +	__u8  pad[6];
> >>>>> +	__u64 fac_list[256];
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +/* the machine related attributes are read only */
> >>>>> +#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_MACHINE		1
> >>>>> +struct kvm_s390_vm_cpu_machine {
> >>>>> +	__u64 cpuid;
> >>>>> +	__u32 ibc_range;
> >>>>> +	__u8  pad[4];
> >>>>> +	__u64 fac_mask[256];
> >>>>> +	__u64 hard_fac_list[256];
> >>>>> +	__u64 soft_fac_list[256];
> >>>>> +};
> >>>>> +
> >>>>>     /* for KVM_GET_REGS and KVM_SET_REGS */
> >>>>>     struct kvm_regs {
> >>>>>     	/* general purpose regs for s390 */
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> >>>>> index a53652f..9965d8b 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> >>>>> @@ -369,6 +369,110 @@ static int kvm_s390_mem_control(struct kvm *kvm, struct
> >>>>> kvm_device_attr *attr) return ret;
> >>>>>     }
> >>>>>     
> >>>>> +static int kvm_s390_set_processor(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +	struct kvm_s390_vm_cpu_processor *proc;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	if (atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus))
> >>>>> +		return -EBUSY;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	proc = kzalloc(sizeof(*proc), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>> +	if (!proc)
> >>>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	if (copy_from_user(proc, (void __user *)attr->addr,
> >>>>> +			   sizeof(*proc))) {
> >>>>> +		kfree(proc);
> >>>>> +		return -EFAULT;
> >>>>> +	}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> >>>>> +	memcpy(&kvm->arch.model.cpu_id, &proc->cpuid,
> >>>>> +	       sizeof(struct cpuid));
> >>>>> +	kvm->arch.model.ibc = proc->ibc;
> >>>>> +	kvm_s390_apply_fac_list_mask((long unsigned *)proc->fac_list);
> >>>>> +	memcpy(kvm->arch.model.fac_list, proc->fac_list,
> >>>>> +	       S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_BYTE);
> >>>>> +	mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> >>>>> +	kfree(proc);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	return 0;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static int kvm_s390_set_cpu_model(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +	int ret = -ENXIO;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	switch (attr->attr) {
> >>>>> +	case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_PROCESSOR:
> >>>>> +		ret = kvm_s390_set_processor(kvm, attr);
> >>>>> +		break;
> >>>>> +	}
> >>>>> +	return ret;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static int kvm_s390_get_processor(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +	struct kvm_s390_vm_cpu_processor *proc;
> >>>>> +	int rc = 0;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	proc = kzalloc(sizeof(*proc), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>> +	if (!proc) {
> >>>>> +		rc = -ENOMEM;
> >>>>> +		goto out;
> >>>>> +	}
> >>>>> +	memcpy(&proc->cpuid, &kvm->arch.model.cpu_id, sizeof(struct cpuid));
> >>>>> +	proc->ibc = kvm->arch.model.ibc;
> >>>>> +	memcpy(&proc->fac_list, kvm->arch.model.fac_list,
> >>>>> +	       S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_BYTE);
> >>>>> +	if (copy_to_user((void __user *)attr->addr, proc, sizeof(*proc)))
> >>>>> +		rc = -EFAULT;
> >>>>> +	kfree(proc);
> >>>>> +out:
> >>>>> +	return rc;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static int kvm_s390_get_machine(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +	struct kvm_s390_vm_cpu_machine *mach;
> >>>>> +	int rc = 0;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	mach = kzalloc(sizeof(*mach), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>> +	if (!mach) {
> >>>>> +		rc = -ENOMEM;
> >>>>> +		goto out;
> >>>>> +	}
> >>>>> +	get_cpu_id((struct cpuid *) &mach->cpuid);
> >>>>> +	mach->ibc_range = kvm_s390_lowest_ibc() << 16;
> >>>>> +	mach->ibc_range |= kvm_s390_latest_ibc();
> >>>>> +	memcpy(&mach->fac_mask, kvm_s390_fac_list_mask,
> >>>>> +	       kvm_s390_fac_list_mask_size() * sizeof(u64));
> >>>>> +	kvm_s390_get_hard_fac_list((long unsigned int *) &mach->hard_fac_list,
> >>>>> +				   S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_U64);
> >>>>> +	kvm_s390_get_soft_fac_list((long unsigned int *) &mach->soft_fac_list,
> >>>>> +				   S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_U64);
> >>>> I really have a hard time grasping what hard and soft means.
> >>> Hard facilities are those that are implemented by the CPU itself, either through processor
> >>> logic or be means of firmware micro code. That's the list returned by the STFL/STFLE
> >>> instruction. In addition to that, one can imagine that in future some of that features are
> >>> emulated on KVM side. These will be placed in the soft facility list and are optionally to
> >>> request by user space.
> >> I don't see why we would have to differentiate between the two. User
> >> space wants features enabled. Whether they are done in hardware or in
> >> software doesn't matter.
> > I've tried to make my point on that in last answer of patch 3/6. It's a mistake
> > to think that user space just wants to have features, they come with different
> > qualities!
> 
> So? If I want to run a z9 compatible guest, I do -cpu z9. I can either
> 
>    a) run it with emulation of a facility or
>    b) not run it
> 
> which one would the user choose?

If you run on a z990 host, you better use -cpu z990 because emulating some
fancy delta feature just cost additional CPU time. If the host is newer, please
go with -cpu z9.

What user and thus also user space wants depends on other factors:

1. reliability
2. performance
3. availability

It's not features, that's what programmers want.

That's why I have designed the model and migration capability around the hardware
and not around the software features and don't allow them to be enabled currently
together.

A software feature is a nice add on that is helpful for evaluation or development
purpose. There is few space for it on productions systems.

One option that I currently see to make software implemented facility migration
capable is to calculate some kind of hash value derived from the full set of
active software facilities. That value can be compared with pre-calculated
values also stored in the supported model table of qemu. This value could be
seen like a virtual model extension that has to match like the model name.

But I have said it elsewhere already, a soft facility should be an exception and
not the rule.

> 
> >
> >> So all we need is a list of "features the guest sees available" which is
> >> the same as "features user space wants the guest to see" which then gets
> >> masked through "features the host can do in hardware".
> >>
> >> For emulation we can just check on the global feature availability on
> >> whether we should emulate them or not.
> >>
> >>>> Also, if user space wants to make sure that its feature list is actually
> >>>> workable on the host kernel, it needs to set and get the features again
> >>>> and then compare that with the ones it set? That's different from x86's
> >>>> cpuid implementation but probably workable.
> >>> User space will probe what facilities are available and match them with the predefined cpu
> >>> model set. Only those models which use a partial or full subset of the hard/host facility
> >>> list are selectable.
> >> Why?
> > If a host does not offer the features required for a model it is not able to
> > run efficiently.
> >
> >> Please take a look at how x86 does cpuid masking :).
> >>
> >> In fact, I'm not 100% convinced that it's a good idea to link cpuid /
> >> feature list exposure to the guest and actual feature implementation
> >> inside the guest together. On POWER there is a patch set pending that
> >> implements these two things separately - admittedly mostly because
> >> hardware sucks and we can't change the PVR.
> > That is maybe the big difference with s390. The cpuid in the S390 case is not
> > directly comparable with the processor version register of POWER.
> >
> > In the S390 world we have a well defined CPU model room spanned by the machine
> > type and its GA count. Thus we can define a bijective mapping between
> > (type, ga) <-> (cpuid, ibc, facility set). From type and ga we form the model
> > name which BTW is meaningful also for a human user.
> 
> Same thing as POWER.
> 
> >
> > By means of this name, a management interface (libvirt) will draw decisions if
> > migration to a remote hypervisor is a good idea or not. For that it just needs
> > to compare if the current model of the guest on the source hypervisor
> > ("query-cpu-model"), is contained in the supported model list of the target
> > hypervisor ("query-cpu-definitions").
> 
> I don't think this works, since QEMU should always return all the cpu 
> definitions it's aware of on query-cpu-definitions, not just the ones 
> that it thinks may be compatible with the host at a random point in time.

It does not return model names that it thinks they are compatible at some point
in time. In s390 mode, it returns all definitions (CPU models) that a given host
system is capable to run. Together with the CPU model run by the guest, some upper
management interface knows if the hypervisor supports the required CPU model and
uses a guest definition with the same CPU model on the target hypervisor.

The information for that is taken from the model table which QEMU builds up during
startup time. This list limits the command line selectable CPU models as well.

This even easily allows to find some GCM (Greatest Common CPU Model) among a set
of hypervisors to allow migration in a a cluster with n>2 parties.

> 
> Please check with the x86 people to find out how they do this.

They currently just list their base model names:
{"return":
  [{"name": "qemu64"}, 
   {"name": "phenom"}, 
   {"name": "core2duo"},
   {"name": "kvm64"},
   {"name": "qemu32"},
   {"name": "kvm32"},
   {"name": "coreduo"},
   {"name": "486"},
   {"name": "pentium"},
   {"name": "pentium2"},
   {"name": "pentium3"},
   {"name": "athlon"},
   {"name": "n270"},
   {"name": "Conroe"},
   {"name": "Penryn"},
   {"name": "Nehalem"},
   {"name": "Westmere"},
   {"name": "SandyBridge"},
   {"name": "Opteron_G1"},
   {"name": "Opteron_G2"},
   {"name": "Opteron_G3"},
   {"name": "Opteron_G4"}]
}

> 
> >
> >>>> I also don't quite grasp what the story behind IBC is. Do you actually
> >>>> block instructions? Where do you match instructions that have to get
> >>>> blocked with instructions that user space wants to see exposed?
> >>>>
> >>> Instruction Blocking Control is a feature that was first introduced with the 2097 (IBM
> >>> System z10.) The IBC value is part of the SIE state. Just consider it as a kind of
> >>> parameter, that allows only instructions that have been implemented up to a certain cpu
> >>> type and GA level to become executed, all other op codes will end in an illegal opcode
> >>> abort. E.g. take the "Transactional Memory" instructions, they are implemented since type
> >>> 2827, GA1 (IBM zEnterprise EC12.). The IBC value has 12 bits 8 for the type and 4 for the
> >>> GA level. 0x001 means its a z10, GA1. The value 0x021 means it's a 2827 (CMOS generation 12
> >>> is 0x02) and GA1 and so forth. A guest running with IBC value 0x012 (z196 GA2) will not be
> >>> able to use TE instructions in contrast to a guest running with IBC value 0x022 given the
> >>> host supports it.
> >> That sounds very similar to the "compat" cpu property that Alexey is
> >> introducing for POWER. Maybe we can model it identically?
> > I think it is something different. With "compat" one might be able the express some kind
> > of compatibility between two processors of the some different generations, upon which
> > the management interface can draw conclusions if migration makes sense or not.
> >
> > The IBC works totally different. It enforces that the instruction set defined for TYPE-GA.
> 
> Yes, which is the same as the PCR register on POWER which the "compat" 
> option controls. I think we can simplify s390x because it's not as 
> broken as POWER in what we can fake to the guest, but I think you should 
> at least be aware of the concepts that are around.

Sorry, I first thought you were talking about the PVR but it looks you are
talking about the LPCR (Logical Partition Control Register). This is as well
different from IBC. The LPCR allows the host POWER LPAR to run in a compatible
mode with back level CPUs. That will allow e.g. POWER8 guests to run safely on
POWER7 if they were started in this mode. But then all the guests in this KVM
hypervisor run in this compatibility mode.

With IBC, all guests have their own value, some might use the full instruction
set which the PR/SM LPAR is offering and others are limited, eventually to
different degrees depending on the CPU model request.

Michael

> 
> 
> Alex
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists