Re: [PATCH v9 22/22] s390: doc: detailed specifications for AP virtualization

Tony Krowiak
2018-08-21T19:21:33Z

On 08/21/2018 12:13 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:16:15 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/20/2018 12:03 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:19 -0400
>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> +AP Architectural Overview:
>>>> +=========================
>>>> +To facilitate the comprehension of the design, let's start with some
>>>> +definitions:
>>>> +
>>>> +* AP adapter
>>>> +
>>>> + An AP adapter is an IBM Z adapter card that can perform cryptographic
>>>> + functions. There can be from 0 to 256 adapters assigned to an LPAR. Adapters
>>>> + assigned to the LPAR in which a linux host is running will be available to
>>>> + the linux host. Each adapter is identified by a number from 0 to 255. When
>>>> + installed, an AP adapter is accessed by AP instructions executed by any CPU.
>>>> +
>>>> + The AP adapter cards are assigned to a given LPAR via the system's Activation
>>>> + Profile which can be edited via the HMC. When the system is IPL'd, the AP bus
>>> There's lots of s390 jargon in here... but one hopes that someone
>>> trying to understand AP is already familiar with the basics...
>> I'm not quite sure how one can describe s390-specific devices that can
>> be installed
>> only on an s390 system without using s390 jargon. I would think that one
>> who is
>> administering a linux host or guest running on an s390 system would have
>> some
>> basic knowledge of s390. If you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to
>> entertain them.
> I fear the jargon is mostly unavoidable :(
>
>>>> +* AP Instructions:
>>>> +
>>>> + There are three AP instructions:
>>>> +
>>>> + * NQAP: to enqueue an AP command-request message to a queue
>>>> + * DQAP: to dequeue an AP command-reply message from a queue
>>>> + * PQAP: to administer the queues
>>> So, NQAP/DQAP need usage domains, while PQAP needs a control domain? Or
>>> is it that all of them need usage domains, but PQAP can target a control
>>> domain as well?
>> All AP instructions - the lone exception being the PQAP(QCI) subfunction -
>> identify the usage domain that is the target of the instruction. I think
>> using the term 'control domain' is the source of much confusion. It makes
>> it seem as if there are two types of domains that serve different purposes.
>> That is simply not true. A domain is a partition within an AP adapter that
>> can process AP command request messages. All AP commands are sent to a
>> domain. Configuring a domain as a usage domain means it can be used to
>> process AP commands; in other words, it can be the target of an AP
>> instruction. Configuring a domain as a control domain means it can be
>> changed by an AP command. AP commands that change a domain are sent to
>> a usage domain, but the domain to be changed is specified in the payload
>> of the AP command message. The domain thus specified must be
>> identified via the AP configuration as a control domain, or the AP command
>> will be rejected.
> Yes, the 'control domain' term is a source of much confusion :(
>
>>> [I don't want to dive deeply into the AP architecture here, just far
>>> enough to really understand the design implications.]
>> Are you suggesting some of the above should be removed? If so, what?
> Not removed. What about an explanation like the following somewhere:
>
> "AP instructions identify the domain that is targeted to process the
> command: This must be one of the usage domains. They may modify a
> domain that is not one of the usage domains, but the modified domain
> must be one of the control domains."
>
> I hope that is both correct and understandable ;)

Yes, it is both correct and understandable.

>
>>> Does the SIE complain if you specify a control
>>> domain that the host does not have access to (I'd guess so)?
>> The SIE does not complain if you specify a domain to which the host - or a
>> lower level guest - does not have access. The firmware performs a logical
>> AND of the guest's and hosts's - or lower level guest's - APMs, AQMs and
>> ADMs
>> to create effective masks EAPM, EAQM and EADM. Only devices corresponding to
>> the bits set in the EAPM, EAQM and EADM will be accessible by the guest.
> OK, so the guest effectively won't see the domain. That makes sense.

It is one of the positive aspects of the architecture.

>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +The APQNs can provide secure key functionality - i.e., a private key is stored
>>>> +on the adapter card for each of its domains - so each APQN must be assigned to
>>>> +at most one guest or to the linux host.
>>>> +
>>>> + Example 1: Valid configuration:
>>>> + ------------------------------
>>>> + Guest1: adapters 1,2 domains 5,6
>>>> + Guest2: adapter 1,2 domain 7
>>>> +
>>>> + This is valid because both guests have a unique set of APQNs: Guest1 has
>>>> + APQNs (1,5), (1,6), (2,5) and (2,6); Guest2 has APQNs (1,7) and (2,7).
>>>> +
>>>> + Example 2: Invalid configuration:
>>>> + Guest1: adapters 1,2 domains 5,6
>>>> + Guest2: adapter 1 domains 6,7
>>>> +
>>>> + This is an invalid configuration because both guests have access to
>>>> + APQN (1,6).
>>> So, the adapters or the domains can overlap , but the cross product
>>> mustn't? If I had
>>>
>>> Guest1: adapters 1,2 domains 5,6
>>> Guest2: adapters 3,4 domains 5,6
>>>
>>> would that be fine?
>> Yes, that would be fine because Guest1 would have access to APQNs
>> (1,5), (1,6), (2,5) and (2,6) while Guest2 would have access to
>> (3,5), (3,6), (4,5) AND (4,6), but neither would have access to
>> the same APQN.
> Might be a good idea to add this as an additional example.

Will do

>
>>> Is there any rule about shared control domains?
>> AFAIK there isn't, but I will consult with Reinhard about that.
>>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>>> +Limitations
>>>> +===========
>>>> +* The KVM/kernel interfaces do not provide a way to prevent unbinding an AP
>>>> + queue that is still assigned to a mediated device. Even if the device
>>>> + 'remove' callback returns an error, the device core detaches the AP
>>>> + queue from the VFIO AP driver. It is therefore incumbent upon the
>>>> + administrator to make sure there is no mediated device to which the
>>>> + APQN - for the AP queue being unbound - is assigned.
>>>> +
>>>> +* Hot plug/unplug of AP devices is not supported for guests.
>>> Not sure what that sentence means. Adding/removing devices by the
>>> hypervisor is not supported? Or some guest actions, respectively
>>> injecting notifications that would trigger some actions on the real
>>> hardware?
>> No means is provided to modify a guest's AP matrix - i.e., APM, AQM
>> and ADM - while a guest is running. Once a guest is running, its AP
>> configuration can not be changed dynamically.
>>
>>> Do you want to add (some of) this in the future?
>> Yes, we plan to introduce dynamic configurations in future releases.
> What about the following sentence:
>
> "Dynamically modifying the AP matrix for a running guest (which would
> amount to hot(un)plug of AP devices for the guest) is currently not
> supported."

Sounds fine to me.

>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +* Live guest migration is not supported for guests using AP devices.
>>> Migration and vfio is an interesting area in general :) Would be great
>>> if vfio-ap could benefit from any generic efforts in that area, but
>>> that probably requires that someone with access to documentation and
>>> hardware keeps an eye on developments.
>> I have briefly looked at some of the articles talking about live migration
>> of passthrough devices, but nothing seemed applicable to AP architecture.
> Most of the approaches to live migration of vfio devices are focused on
> pci devices; even ccw devices have different needs. Any halfway generic
> approach would need a common part and a backend-specific part anyway, I
> think.

Yes, that would seem to be the case.

>
>> From my limited perspective, it would seem that architectural changes
>> would have to be implemented to fully support live migration of in-process
>> AP queues.
> From what I have seen of the AP virtualization architecture, this may
> very well be the case. I'll keep AP in the back of my head, but it's
> probably better to focus on the easier targets first.

That has been our goal from the start.

>