Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PULL 19/48] spapr: allocate the ICPState object from under sPAPRCPUCore

[Greg Kurz]

On Wed, 17 May 2017 07:50:42 +0200
Cédric Le Goater <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 05/16/2017 06:10 PM, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 May 2017 17:18:27 +0200
> > Cédric Le Goater <address@hidden> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 05/16/2017 02:55 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:  
> >>> On 16/05/2017 14:50, Cédric Le Goater wrote:    
> >>>> On 05/16/2017 02:03 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:    
> >>>>> On 26/04/2017 09:00, David Gibson wrote:    
> >>>>>> From: Cédric Le Goater <address@hidden>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Today, all the ICPs are created before the CPUs, stored in an array
> >>>>>> under the sPAPR machine and linked to the CPU when the core threads
> >>>>>> are realized. This modeling brings some complexity when a lookup in
> >>>>>> the array is required and it can be simplified by allocating the ICPs
> >>>>>> when the CPUs are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is the purpose of this proposal which introduces a new 'icp_type'
> >>>>>> field under the machine and creates the ICP objects of the right type
> >>>>>> (KVM or not) before the PowerPCCPU object are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This change allows more cleanups : the removal of the icps array under
> >>>>>> the sPAPR machine and the removal of the xics_get_cpu_index_by_dt_id()
> >>>>>> helper.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <address@hidden>
> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>  hw/intc/xics.c          | 11 -----------
> >>>>>>  hw/ppc/spapr.c          | 47 
> >>>>>> ++++++++++++++---------------------------------
> >>>>>>  hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> >>>>>>  include/hw/ppc/spapr.h  |  2 +-
> >>>>>>  include/hw/ppc/xics.h   |  2 --
> >>>>>>  5 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>    
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This commit breaks CPU re-hotplugging with KVM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the sequence "device_add, device_del, device_add" brings to the
> >>>>> following error message:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     Unable to connect CPUx to kernel XICS: Device or resource busy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It comes from icp_kvm_cpu_setup():
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>     ret = kvm_vcpu_enable_cap(cs, KVM_CAP_IRQ_XICS, 0, kernel_xics_fd,
> >>>>>                               kvm_arch_vcpu_id(cs));
> >>>>>     if (ret < 0) {
> >>>>>         error_report("Unable to connect CPU%ld to kernel XICS: %s",
> >>>>>                      kvm_arch_vcpu_id(cs), strerror(errno));
> >>>>>         exit(1);
> >>>>>     }
> >>>>> ..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It should be protected by cap_irq_xics_enabled:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>     /*
> >>>>>      * If we are reusing a parked vCPU fd corresponding to the CPU
> >>>>>      * which was hot-removed earlier we don't have to renable
> >>>>>      * KVM_CAP_IRQ_XICS capability again.
> >>>>>      */
> >>>>>     if (icp->cap_irq_xics_enabled) {
> >>>>>         return;
> >>>>>     }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>     ret = kvm_vcpu_enable_cap(...);
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>     icp->cap_irq_xics_enabled = true;
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But since this commit, "icp" is a new object on each call:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> spapr_cpu_core_realize_child()
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>     obj = object_new(spapr->icp_type);
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>     xics_cpu_setup(XICS_FABRIC(spapr), cpu, ICP(obj));
> >>>>>     ...
> >>>>>             icpc->cpu_setup(icp, cpu); -> icp_kvm_cpu_setup()
> >>>>>     ...
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and "cap_irq_xics_enabled" is reinitialized.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any idea how to fix that?    
> >>>>
> >>>> it seems that a cleanup is not done in the kernel. We are missing
> >>>> a way to call kvmppc_xics_free_icp() from QEMU. Today the only
> >>>> way is to destroy the vcpu.     
> >>>
> >>> The commit introducing this hack, for reference:
> >>>
> >>> commit a45863bda90daa8ec39e5a312b9734fd4665b016
> >>> Author: Bharata B Rao <address@hidden>
> >>> Date:   Thu Jul 2 16:23:20 2015 +1000
> >>>
> >>>     xics_kvm: Don't enable KVM_CAP_IRQ_XICS if already enabled
> >>>     
> >>>     When supporting CPU hot removal by parking the vCPU fd and reusing
> >>>     it during hotplug again, there can be cases where we try to reenable
> >>>     KVM_CAP_IRQ_XICS CAP for the vCPU for which it was already enabled.
> >>>     Introduce a boolean member in ICPState to track this and don't
> >>>     reenable the CAP if it was already enabled earlier.
> >>>     
> >>>     Re-enabling this CAP should ideally work, but currently it results in
> >>>     kernel trying to create and associate ICP with this vCPU and that
> >>>     fails since there is already an ICP associated with it. Hence this
> >>>     patch is needed to work around this problem in the kernel.
> >>>     
> >>>     This change allows CPU hot removal to work for sPAPR.
> >>>     
> >>>     Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <address@hidden>
> >>>     Reviewed-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> >>>     Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> >>>     Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <address@hidden>    
> >>
> >> OK. 
> >>
> >> Greg is looking at re-adding the ICPState array because of a 
> >> migration issue with older machines. We might need to do so 
> >> unconditionally ...
> >>  
> > 
> > That would be a pity to carry on with the pre-allocated ICPStates for
> > new machine types just because of that... What about keeping track
> > of all the cap_irq_xics_enabled flags in a separate max_cpus sized
> > static array ?  
> 
> Could we use 'cpu->unplug' instead ? 
> 

No we can't because we only park the vCPU fd actually and we always pass
a freshly allocated CPUState with @unplug == false to xics_cpu_setup().

> C. 
> 
> 
> >> But for that specific issue, I think it would have been better 
> >> to clean up the kernel state. Is that possible ? 
> >>  
> > 
> > Commit 4c055ab54fae ("cpu: Reclaim vCPU objects") gives some more details
> > on why we don't destroy the vCPU in KVM on unplug, but rather park the vCPU
> > fd for later use... so I'm not sure we can clean up the kernel state.
> > 
> > But since the vCPU is still present, maybe we can find a way to tell KVM
> > that we want to reuse an already present ICP ?
> >   
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> C.
> >>  
> >>  
> >>>> Else we need to reintroduce the array of icps (again) to keep some 
> >>>> xics state ... but that just sucks :/ Let me think about it. 
> >>>>    
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Laurent    
> >>>> C.
> >>>>    
> >>>     
> >>  
> >   
>

pgple8GSWPxi8.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature