[REPOST PATCH] arm/arm64: KVM: Add PSCI version selection API
Auger Eric
eric.auger at redhat.com
Fri Mar 2 04:26:14 PST 2018
Hi Marc,
On 02/03/18 12:11, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:44:48 +0000,
> Auger Eric wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 15/02/18 18:58, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Although we've implemented PSCI 0.1, 0.2 and 1.0, we expose either 0.1
>>> or 1.0 to a guest, defaulting to the latest version of the PSCI
>>> implementation that is compatible with the requested version. This is
>>> no different from doing a firmware upgrade on KVM.
>>>
>>> But in order to give a chance to hypothetical badly implemented guests
>>> that would have a fit by discovering something other than PSCI 0.2,
>>> let's provide a new API that allows userspace to pick one particular
>>> version of the API.
>>
>> I understand the get/set is called as part of the migration process.
>> So my understanding is the benefit of this series is migration fails in
>> those cases:
>>
>>> =0.2 source -> 0.1 destination
>> 0.1 source -> >=0.2 destination
>
> It also fails in the case where you migrate a 1.0 guest to something
> that cannot support it.
That's because on the destination, the number of regs is less than on
source, right?
My previous reasoning was:
At the moment, in QEMU, IIUC, we check the KVM_CAP_ARM_PSCI_0_2
capability and if it is advertised, we initialize the vpcu with
KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2. This holds for a 0.2 or 1.0 kernel.
Assuming the source is 1.0 capable and the destination has a < 4.16
kernel so 0.2 only. On migration the fw reg get() returns
KVM_ARM_PSCI_1_0. On Set, wants_02 is set and
vcpu->kvm->arch.psci_version gets set to KVM_ARM_PSCI_1_0.
>
>> However in the above mentioned use case where the guest would absolutely
>> need a 0.2 and not a 1.0 I don't get on which event the userspace would
>> do a set to force 0.2?
>
> You'd have to know that your guest cannot support 0.2, and force 0.2
> by doing a SET_ONE_REG(KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_VERSION, PSCI_VERSION(0, 2)).
>
> Or am I missing what you're asking for?
My question rather was how do you get to know?
>
>>>
>>> This is implemented as a new class of "firmware" registers, where
>>> we expose the PSCI version. This allows the PSCI version to be
>>> save/restored as part of a guest migration, and also set to
>>> any supported version if the guest requires it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>>> ---
>>> This is a repost of this proposal for a firmware selection API, as
>>> there was some discussion during the merging window. Now that the core
>>> variant-2 stuff is merged, we can have a go at more
>>> bikesheding. Please open fire!
>>>
>>> Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt | 9 ++++-
>>> Documentation/virtual/kvm/arm/psci.txt | 30 +++++++++++++++++
>>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 ++
>>> arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 6 ++++
>>> arch/arm/kvm/guest.c | 13 ++++++++
>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 ++
>>> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 6 ++++
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c | 14 +++++++-
>>> include/kvm/arm_psci.h | 16 +++++++--
>>> virt/kvm/arm/psci.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 10 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/virtual/kvm/arm/psci.txt
>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>>> index 57d3ee9e4bde..d2b41e1608b4 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>>> @@ -1943,6 +1943,9 @@ ARM 32-bit VFP control registers have the following id bit patterns:
>>> ARM 64-bit FP registers have the following id bit patterns:
>>> 0x4030 0000 0012 0 <regno:12>
>>>
>>> +ARM firmware pseudo-registers have the following bit pattern:
>> s/bit pattern/id bit patterns?
>>> + 0x4030 0000 0014 <regno:16>
>>> +
>>>
>>> arm64 registers are mapped using the lower 32 bits. The upper 16 of
>>> that is the register group type, or coprocessor number:
>>> @@ -1959,6 +1962,9 @@ arm64 CCSIDR registers are demultiplexed by CSSELR value:
>>> arm64 system registers have the following id bit patterns:
>>> 0x6030 0000 0013 <op0:2> <op1:3> <crn:4> <crm:4> <op2:3>
>>>
>>> +arm64 firmware pseudo-registers have the following bit pattern:
>> s/bit pattern/id bit patterns?
>>> + 0x6030 0000 0014 <regno:16>
>>> +
>>>
>>> MIPS registers are mapped using the lower 32 bits. The upper 16 of that is
>>> the register group type:
>>> @@ -2493,7 +2499,8 @@ Possible features:
>>> and execute guest code when KVM_RUN is called.
>>> - KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT: Starts the CPU in a 32bit mode.
>>> Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_EL1_32BIT (arm64 only).
>>> - - KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2: Emulate PSCI v0.2 for the CPU.
>>> + - KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2: Emulate PSCI v0.2 (or a future revision
>>> + backward compatible with v0.2) for the CPU.
>>> Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PSCI_0_2.
>>> - KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3: Emulate PMUv3 for the CPU.
>>> Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3.
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/arm/psci.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/arm/psci.txt
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..aafdab887b04
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/arm/psci.txt
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
>>> +KVM implements the PSCI (Power State Coordination Interface)
>>> +specification in order to provide services such as CPU on/off, reset
>>> +and power-off to the guest.
>>> +
>>> +The PSCI specification is regularly updated to provide new features,
>>> +and KVM implements these updates if they make sense from a virtualization
>>> +point of view.
>>> +
>>> +This means that a guest booted on two different versions of KVM can
>>> +observe two different "firmware" revisions. This could cause issues if
>>> +a given guest is tied to a particular PSCI revision (unlikely), or if
>>> +a migration causes a different PSCI version to be exposed out of the
>>> +blue to an unsuspecting guest.
>>> +
>>> +In order to remedy this situation, KVM exposes a set of "firmware
>>> +pseudo-registers" that can be manipulated using the GET/SET_ONE_REG
>>> +interface. These registers can be saved/restored by userspace, and set
>>> +to a convenient value if required.
>>> +
>>> +The following register is defined:
>>> +
>>> +* KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_VERSION:
>>> +
>>> + - Only valid if the vcpu has the KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2 feature set
>>> + (and thus has already been initialized)
>>> + - Returns the current PSCI version on GET_ONE_REG (defaulting to the
>>> + highest PSCI version implemented by KVM and compatible with v0.2)
>> backwards compatible?
>>> + - Allows any PSCI version implemented by KVM and compatible with
>> backwards compatible?
>>> + v0.2 to be set with SET_ONE_REG
>>> + - Affects the whole VM (even if the register view is per-vcpu)
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> index ef54013b5b9f..6c05e3b13081 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> @@ -75,6 +75,9 @@ struct kvm_arch {
>>> /* Interrupt controller */
>>> struct vgic_dist vgic;
>>> int max_vcpus;
>>> +
>>> + /* Mandated version of PSCI */
>>> + u32 psci_version;
>>> };
>>>
>>> #define KVM_NR_MEM_OBJS 40
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>> index 6edd177bb1c7..47dfc99f5cd0 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>> @@ -186,6 +186,12 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
>>> #define KVM_REG_ARM_VFP_FPINST 0x1009
>>> #define KVM_REG_ARM_VFP_FPINST2 0x100A
>>>
>>> +/* KVM-as-firmware specific pseudo-registers */
>>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_FW (0x0014 << KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_SHIFT)
>>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(r) (KVM_REG_ARM | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | \
>>> + KVM_REG_ARM_FW | ((r) & 0xffff))
>>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_VERSION KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(0)
>>
>> #define KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2 2 /* CPU uses PSCI v0.2 */
>> Comment may deserve an upgrade too
>
> I'm not sure we want this. KVM_REG_PSCI_VERSION takes a PSCI version
> number, as indicated in the PSCI spec. You should use
> PSCI_VERSION(0,2), as defined in include/uapi/linux/psci.h.
The above define is used when initializing the vcpu, right? This now
means we are likely to have a >=0.2 PSCI version and not strictly
speaking a 0.2 one?
Thanks
Eric
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list