Message-ID: <87pp8ib04y.fsf@linaro.org>
Date:	Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:34:21 +0000
From:	Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
To:	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, marc.zyngier@....com,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"open list\:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] arm: KVM: export vcpi->pause state via MP_STATE ioctls


Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org> writes:

> Hi Alex,
>
> The subject of this change has a typo, and I also think it's not about
> exposing the pause state (that's just an internal name/concept), but
> about exposing the PSCI state, or simply the VCPU power state.

arm: KVM: export VCPU power state via MP_STATE ioctl?

>
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 01:29:00PM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> To cleanly restore an SMP VM we need to ensure that the current pause
>> state of each vcpu is correctly recorded. Things could get confused if
>> the CPU starts running after migration restore completes when it was
>> paused before it state was captured.
>> 
>> We use the existing KVM_GET/SET_MP_STATE ioctl to do this. The arm/arm64
>> interface is a lot simpler as the only valid states are
>> KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE and KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> index b112efc..602156f 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> @@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ for vm-wide capabilities.
>>  4.38 KVM_GET_MP_STATE
>>  
>>  Capability: KVM_CAP_MP_STATE
>> -Architectures: x86, s390
>> +Architectures: x86, s390, arm, arm64
>>  Type: vcpu ioctl
>>  Parameters: struct kvm_mp_state (out)
>>  Returns: 0 on success; -1 on error
>> @@ -1027,15 +1027,21 @@ Possible values are:
>>   - KVM_MP_STATE_LOAD:            the vcpu is in a special load/startup state
>>                                   [s390]
>>  
>> -On x86, this ioctl is only useful after KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP. Without an
>> -in-kernel irqchip, the multiprocessing state must be maintained by userspace on
>> +For x86:
>> +
>> +This ioctl is only useful after KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP.  Without an in-kernel
>> +irqchip, the multiprocessing state must be maintained by userspace on
>
> Nit: I would not taint the git log with this change but instead just
> introduce a paragraph below starting with "On arm/arm64, " and you would
> get the same effect.
>
>>  these architectures.
>>  
>> +For arm/arm64:
>> +
>> +The only states that are valid are KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED and
>> +KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE which reflect if the vcpu is paused or not.
>
> As suggested on the QEMU series, HALTED is probably not the right thing
> to use.

KVM_MP_STATE_STOPPED is currently only used for s390 but seems to fit.
I'm wary of adding yet another define.

>
>>  
>>  4.39 KVM_SET_MP_STATE
>>  
>>  Capability: KVM_CAP_MP_STATE
>> -Architectures: x86, s390
>> +Architectures: x86, s390, arm, arm64
>>  Type: vcpu ioctl
>>  Parameters: struct kvm_mp_state (in)
>>  Returns: 0 on success; -1 on error
>> @@ -1043,10 +1049,16 @@ Returns: 0 on success; -1 on error
>>  Sets the vcpu's current "multiprocessing state"; see KVM_GET_MP_STATE for
>>  arguments.
>>  
>> -On x86, this ioctl is only useful after KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP. Without an
>> -in-kernel irqchip, the multiprocessing state must be maintained by userspace on
>> +For x86:
>> +
>> +This ioctl is only useful after KVM_CREATE_IRQCHIP.  Without an in-kernel
>> +irqchip, the multiprocessing state must be maintained by userspace on
>>  these architectures.
>>  
>> +For arm/arm64:
>> +
>> +The only states that are valid are KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED and
>> +KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE which reflect if the vcpu should be paused or not.
>
> same as above
>
>>  
>>  4.40 KVM_SET_IDENTITY_MAP_ADDR
>>  
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
>> index 5560f74..8531536 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
>> @@ -183,6 +183,7 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
>>  	case KVM_CAP_ARM_PSCI:
>>  	case KVM_CAP_ARM_PSCI_0_2:
>>  	case KVM_CAP_READONLY_MEM:
>> +	case KVM_CAP_MP_STATE:
>>  		r = 1;
>>  		break;
>>  	case KVM_CAP_COALESCED_MMIO:
>> @@ -313,13 +314,29 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>  int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_get_mpstate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>  				    struct kvm_mp_state *mp_state)
>>  {
>> -	return -EINVAL;
>> +	if (vcpu->arch.pause)
>> +		mp_state->mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED;
>> +	else
>> +		mp_state->mp_state = KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>>  int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_mpstate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>  				    struct kvm_mp_state *mp_state)
>>  {
>> -	return -EINVAL;
>> +	switch (mp_state->mp_state) {
>> +	case KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE:
>> +		vcpu->arch.pause = false;
>> +		break;
>> +	case KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED:
>> +		vcpu->arch.pause = true;
>> +		break;
>> +	default:
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>>  /**
>
> Are we capturing the vcpu features in some way or do we expect userspace
> to migrate these on its own?  The reason I'm asking, is if you create
> multiple VCPUs, where all the non-primary VCPUs are started in power off
> mode, and then you boot your guest which powers on all VCPUs, and then
> you restart your guest (with PSCI RESET), the system will not power on
> all the non-primary VCPUs but hold them in power-off.
>
> We need to make sure this behavior is preserved for a reboot across a
> migration.  Is it?

Isn't that behaviour orthogonal to the migration case?

- Boot
- Power on secondary CPUs
- Power off one secondary CPU
- Migrate to file (cpu_powered reflects state of each CPU)

- Start fresh QEMU
- Restore from file (cpu_powered -> vcpu->paused via ioctl)
- Run (we continue with the same power state pre-migrate)

- PSCI RESET
- Does what it does, power all secondaries down?
- Kernel boots, turns them on?



>
> Thanks,
> -Christoffer

-- 
Alex Bennée
--
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