Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH/RFC 4/5] s390x/kvm: test whether a cpu is STOPPED when checking "has_work"

David Hildenbrand
2014-07-28T15:03:29Z

>
> On 28.07.2014, at 16:16, David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> On 10.07.14 15:10, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >>> From: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>
> >>> If a cpu is stopped, it must never be allowed to run and no interrupt may wake it
> >>> up. A cpu also has to be unhalted if it is halted and has work to do - this
> >>> scenario wasn't hit in kvm case yet, as only "disabled wait" is processed within
> >>> QEMU.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
> >>
> >> This looks like it's something that generic infrastructure should take
> >> care of, no? How does this work for the other archs? They always get an
> >> interrupt on the transition between !has_work -> has_work. Why don't we
> >> get one for s390x?
> >>
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Well, we have the special case on s390 as a CPU that is in the STOPPED or the
> > CHECK STOP state may never run - even if there is an interrupt. It's
> > basically like this CPU has been switched off.
> >
> > Imagine that it is tried to inject an interrupt into a stopped vcpu. It
> > will kick the stopped vcpu and thus lead to a call to
> > "kvm_arch_process_async_events()". We have to deny that this vcpu will ever
> > run as long as it is stopped. It's like a way to "suppress" the
> > interrupt for such a transition you mentioned.
>
> An interrupt kick usually just means we go back into the main loop. From there we check the interrupt bitmap which interrupt to handle. Check out the handling code here:
>
> http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=blob;f=cpu-exec.c;h=38e5f02a307523d99134f4e2e6c51683bb10b45b;hb=HEAD#l580
>
> If you just check for the stopped state in here, do_interrupt() will never get called and thus the CPU shouldn't ever get executed. Unless I'm heavily mistaken :).

So you would rather move the check out of has_work() into the main loop in
cpu-exec.c and directly into kvm_arch_process_async_events()?

This would on the other hand lead to an unhalt of the vcpu in cpu_exec() on any
CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD. A VCPU might thus be unhalted although it is not able to run. Is okay?

Looking at cpu.c:cpu_thread_is_idle(), we would maybe return false, although we
are idle (because we are idle when we are stopped)?

My qemu kvm knowledge is way better than the qemu emulation knowledge, so I
appreciate any insights :)

>
> >
> > Later, another vcpu might decide to turn that vcpu back on (by e.g. sending a
> > SIGP START to that vcpu).
>
> Yes, in that case that other CPU generates a signal (a different bit in interrupt_request) and the first CPU would see that it has to wake up and wake up.
>
> > I am not sure if such a mechanism/scenario is applicable to any other arch. They
> > all seem to reset the cs->halted flag if they know they are able to run (e.g.
> > due to an interrupt) - they have no such thing as "stopped cpus", only
> > "halted/waiting cpus".
>
> There's not really much difference between the two. The only difference from a software point of view is that a "stopped" CPU has its external interrupt bits masked off, no?

Well the difference is, that a STOPPED vcpu can be woken up by non-interrupt
like things (SIGP START) AND a special interrupt (SIGP RESTART - which is like
a "SIPI"++ as it performs a psw exchange - "NMI"). So we basically have two
paths that can lead to a state change. All interrupt bits may be in any
combination (SIGP RESTART interrupts can't be masked out, nor can SIGP START be
denied).

The other thing may be that on s390, each vcpu (including itself) can put
another vcpu into the STOPPED state - I assume that this is different for x86 "
INIT_RECEIVED". For this reason we have to watch out for bad race conditions
(e.g. multiple vcpus working on another vcpu)...

David

>
>
> Alex
>