[PATCH v8 7/7] arm64: kvm: handle SError Interrupt by categorization

[gengdongjiu]

2018-01-15 16:33 GMT+08:00 Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org>:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:05:23PM +0000, James Morse wrote:
>> On 15/12/17 03:30, gengdongjiu wrote:
>> > On 2017/12/7 14:37, gengdongjiu wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> (I recall someone saying migration is needed for any new KVM/cpu features, but I
>> can't find the thread)
>>
>
> I don't know of any hard set-in-stone rule for this, but I have
> certainly argued that since migration is a popular technique in data
> centers and often a key motivation behind using virtual machines as it
> provides both load-balancing and high availability, we should think
> about migration support for all features and state.  Further, experience
> has shown that retroactively trying to support migration can result in
> really complex interfaces for saving/restoring state (see the ITS
> ordering requirements in
> Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic-its.txt as an example) so
> thinking about this problem when introducing functionality is a good
> idea.
yes, agree it.

>
> Of course, if there are really good arguments for having some state that
> simply cannot be migrated, then that's fine, and we should just make
> sure that userspace (e.g. QEMU) and higher level components in the
> stack (libvirt, openstack, etc.) can detect this state being used, and
> ideally enable/disable it, so that it can predict that a particular VM
> cannot be migrated off a particular host, or between a particular set of
> two hosts.  As an example, migration is typically prohibited when using
> VFIO direct device assignment, but userspace etc. are already aware of
> this.
Ok,  I think this problem is similar to migrating a VM that uses an irqchip in
 userspace and has set the IRQ or FIQ lines using KVM_IRQ_LINE.

>
> As a final note, if we add support for some architectural feature, which
> may be present on some particular hardware and/or implementation, if the
> KVM support for said feature is automatically enabled (and not
> selectively from userspace), I would push back quite strongly on
> something that doesn't support migration, because it would effectively
> prevent migration of VMs on ARM.
Ok, got it.

>
> Thanks,
> -Christoffer
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> kvmarm at lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm