qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [RFCv2 12/12] ppc: Rework CPU compatibility


From: Greg Kurz
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [RFCv2 12/12] ppc: Rework CPU compatibility testing across migration
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:48:25 +0100

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:17:55 +1100
David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:

> Migrating between different CPU versions is quite complicated for ppc.
> A long time ago, we ensure identical CPU versions at either end by checking
> the PVR had the same value.  However, this breaks under KVM HV, because
> we always have to use the host's PVR - it's not virtualized.  That would
> mean we couldn't migrate between hosts with different PVRs, even if the
> CPUs are close enough to compatible in practice (sometimes identical cores
> with different surrounding logic have different PVRs, so this happens in
> practice quite often).
> 
> So, we removed the PVR check, but instead checked that several flags
> indicating supported instructions matched.  This turns out to be a bad
> idea, because those instruction masks are not architected information, but
> essentially a TCG implementation detail.  So changes to qemu internal CPU
> modelling can break migration - this happened between qemu-2.6 and
> qemu-2.7.
> 
> Modern server-class CPUs can be placed into compatibility modes.  Now that
> we're handling those properly, we finally have the information to sanely
> deal with CPU compatibility across migration.
> 
> This patch bumps the migration version number for the ppc CPU removing the
> instruction mask field (and some other unwise VMSTATE_EQUAL checks), and
> adding the compatibility PVR to the migration stream.
> 

Things have changed since you posted this RFC:

commit 16a2497bd44cac1856e259654fd304079bd1dcdc
Author: David Gibson <address@hidden>
Date:   Mon Nov 21 16:28:12 2016 +1100

    target-ppc: Fix CPU migration from qemu-2.6 <-> later versions

and

commit 146c11f16f12dbfea62cbd7f865614bb6fcbc6b5
Author: David Gibson <address@hidden>
Date:   Mon Nov 21 16:29:30 2016 +1100

    target-ppc: Allow eventual removal of old migration mistakes

I guess that the version bumping isn't necessary anymore if we keep these.

I'll assume yes and rebase this patch against current master, simply dropping
the version bumping and related lines.

> We consider the CPUs compatible for migration if:
>     * The source was running in a compatibility mode which the destination
>       supports
> OR  * The source has a PVR matching the same qemu CPU class as the
>       destination, either an exact match or an approximate match determined
>       by the cpu class's pvr_match hook.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> ---
>  target-ppc/machine.c | 87 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/target-ppc/machine.c b/target-ppc/machine.c
> index e43cb6c..25a30d5 100644
> --- a/target-ppc/machine.c
> +++ b/target-ppc/machine.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>  #include "helper_regs.h"
>  #include "mmu-hash64.h"
>  #include "migration/cpu.h"
> +#include "qapi/error.h"
>  
>  static int cpu_load_old(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque, int version_id)
>  {
> @@ -163,6 +164,30 @@ static void cpu_pre_save(void *opaque)
>      }
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Determine if a given PVR is a "close enough" match to the CPU
> + * object.  For TCG and KVM PR it would probably be sufficient to
> + * require an exact PVR match.  However for KVM HV the user is
> + * restricted to a PVR exactly matching the host CPU.  The correct way
> + * to handle this is to put the guest into an architected
> + * compatibility mode.  However, to allow a more forgiving transition
> + * and migration from before this was widely done, we allow migration
> + * between sufficiently similar PVRs, as determined by the CPU class's
> + * pvr_match() hook.
> + */
> +static bool pvr_match(PowerPCCPU *cpu, uint32_t pvr)
> +{
> +    PowerPCCPUClass *pcc = POWERPC_CPU_GET_CLASS(cpu);
> +
> +    if (pvr == pcc->pvr) {
> +        return true;
> +    }
> +    if (pcc->pvr_match) {
> +        return pcc->pvr_match(pcc, pvr);
> +    }
> +    return false;
> +}
> +
>  static int cpu_post_load(void *opaque, int version_id)
>  {
>      PowerPCCPU *cpu = opaque;
> @@ -171,10 +196,31 @@ static int cpu_post_load(void *opaque, int version_id)
>      target_ulong msr;
>  
>      /*
> -     * We always ignore the source PVR. The user or management
> -     * software has to take care of running QEMU in a compatible mode.
> +     * If we're operating in compat mode, we should be ok as long as
> +     * the destination supports the same compatiblity mode.
> +     *
> +     * Otherwise, however, we require that the destination has exactly
> +     * the same CPU model as the source.
>       */
> -    env->spr[SPR_PVR] = env->spr_cb[SPR_PVR].default_value;
> +
> +#if defined(TARGET_PPC64)
> +    if (cpu->compat_pvr) {
> +        Error *local_err = NULL;
> +
> +        ppc_set_compat(cpu, cpu->compat_pvr, &local_err);

This calls cpu_synchronize_state(CPU(cpu)) and trashes the registers. This
is the root cause behind the program interrupts I mentioned in another mail.

Adding a sync_needed boolean argument to ppc_set_compat() seems to be enough
to get this working. So I'll just do that and rerun the tests.

Cheers.

--
Greg

> +        if (local_err) {
> +            error_report_err(local_err);
> +            error_free(local_err);
> +            return -1;
> +        }
> +    } else
> +#endif
> +    {
> +        if (!pvr_match(cpu, env->spr[SPR_PVR])) {
> +            return -1;
> +        }
> +    }
> +
>      env->lr = env->spr[SPR_LR];
>      env->ctr = env->spr[SPR_CTR];
>      cpu_write_xer(env, env->spr[SPR_XER]);
> @@ -527,9 +573,32 @@ static const VMStateDescription vmstate_tlbmas = {
>      }
>  };
>  
> +static bool compat_needed(void *opaque)
> +{
> +    PowerPCCPU *cpu = opaque;
> +
> +    return cpu->vhyp != NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static const VMStateDescription vmstate_compat = {
> +    .name = "cpu/compat",
> +    .version_id = 1,
> +    .minimum_version_id = 1,
> +    .needed = compat_needed,
> +    .fields = (VMStateField[]) {
> +        VMSTATE_UINT32(compat_pvr, PowerPCCPU),
> +        VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()
> +    }
> +};
> +
> +static bool version_before_6(void *opaque, int version_id)
> +{
> +    return version_id < 6;
> +}
> +
>  const VMStateDescription vmstate_ppc_cpu = {
>      .name = "cpu",
> -    .version_id = 5,
> +    .version_id = 6,
>      .minimum_version_id = 5,
>      .minimum_version_id_old = 4,
>      .load_state_old = cpu_load_old,
> @@ -561,10 +630,11 @@ const VMStateDescription vmstate_ppc_cpu = {
>          /* FIXME: access_type? */
>  
>          /* Sanity checking */
> -        VMSTATE_UINTTL_EQUAL(env.msr_mask, PowerPCCPU),
> -        VMSTATE_UINT64_EQUAL(env.insns_flags, PowerPCCPU),
> -        VMSTATE_UINT64_EQUAL(env.insns_flags2, PowerPCCPU),
> -        VMSTATE_UINT32_EQUAL(env.nb_BATs, PowerPCCPU),
> +        VMSTATE_UNUSED_TEST(version_before_6,
> +                            sizeof(target_ulong) /* msr_mask */
> +                            + sizeof(uint64_t) /* insns_flags */
> +                            + sizeof(uint64_t) /* insns_flags2 */
> +                            + sizeof(uint32_t)), /* nb_BATs */
>          VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()
>      },
>      .subsections = (const VMStateDescription*[]) {
> @@ -579,6 +649,7 @@ const VMStateDescription vmstate_ppc_cpu = {
>          &vmstate_tlb6xx,
>          &vmstate_tlbemb,
>          &vmstate_tlbmas,
> +        &vmstate_compat,
>          NULL
>      }
>  };




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]