[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59A84F9D.8030309@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:04:13 +0100
From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To: Dongjiu Geng <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>
CC: christoffer.dall@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
rkrcmar@...hat.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@....com,
will.deacon@....com, lenb@...nel.org, robert.moore@...el.com,
lv.zheng@...el.com, mark.rutland@....com, xiexiuqi@...wei.com,
cov@...eaurora.org, david.daney@...ium.com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
stefan@...lo-penguin.com, Dave.Martin@....com,
kristina.martsenko@....com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
tbaicar@...eaurora.org, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
mingo@...nel.org, bp@...e.de, shiju.jose@...wei.com,
zjzhang@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...ica.org, mst@...hat.com, john.garry@...wei.com,
jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
huangdaode@...ilicon.com, wangzhou1@...ilicon.com,
huangshaoyu@...wei.com, wuquanming@...wei.com, linuxarm@...wei.com,
zhengqiang10@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] arm64: kvm: support user space to query RAS extension
feature
Hi Dongjiu Geng,
On 28/08/17 11:38, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
> In ARMV8.2 RAS extension, a virtual SError exception syndrome
> register(VSESR_EL2) is added. This value may be specified from
> userspace.
I agree that the CPU support for injecting SErrors with a specified ESR should
be exposed to KVM's user space...
> Userspace will want to check if the CPU has the RAS
> extension.
... but user-space wants to know if it can inject SErrors with a specified ESR.
What if we gain another way of doing this that isn't via the RAS-extensions, now
user-space has to check for two capabilities.
> If it has, it wil specify the virtual SError syndrome
> value, otherwise it will not be set. This patch adds support for
> querying the availability of this extension.
I'm against telling user-space what features the CPU has unless it can use them
directly. In this case we are talking about a KVM API, so we should describe the
API not the CPU.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
> index 3256b9228e75..b7313ee028e9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
> @@ -77,6 +77,9 @@ int kvm_arch_dev_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
> case KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3:
> r = kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3();
> break;
> + case KVM_CAP_ARM_RAS_EXTENSION:
This should be called something more like 'KVM_CAP_ARM_INJECT_SERROR_ESR'
> + r = cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_RAS_EXTN);
> + break;
> case KVM_CAP_SET_GUEST_DEBUG:
> case KVM_CAP_VCPU_ATTRIBUTES:
> r = 1;
We can inject SError on systems without the RAS extensions using just the
HCR_EL2.VSE bit. We may want to make the 'ESR' part of the API optional, or
expose '1' for the without-ESR version and '2 for with-ESR, (however we choose
to implement that).
The risk is if we want to add a without-ESR version later, and the name we make
ABI now turned out to be a mistake. Marc or Christoffer probably have the best
view of this. (no-one has needed it so far...)
Thanks,
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists