Re: [RFC PATCH 16/16] KVM: arm64/sve: Report and enable SVE API extensions for userspace

Christoffer Dall
2018-08-07T20:08:34Z

On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 12:23:45PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 03:41:33PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 02:18:02PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 06:52:56PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 04:27:49PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:59:21PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > > > > > - /*
> > > > > > > - * For now, we don't return any features.
> > > > > > > - * In future, we might use features to return target
> > > > > > > - * specific features available for the preferred
> > > > > > > - * target type.
> > > > > > > - */
> > > > > > > + /* KVM_ARM_VCPU_SVE understood by KVM_VCPU_INIT */
> > > > > > > + init->features[0] = 1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_SVE;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We shouldn't need to do this. The "preferred" target type isn't defined
> > > > > > well (that I know of), but IMO it should probably be the target that
> > > > > > best matches the host, minus optional features. The best base target. We
> > > > > > may use these features to convey that the preferred target should enable
> > > > > > some optional feature if that feature is necessary to workaround a bug,
> > > > > > i.e. using the "feature" bit as an erratum bit someday, but that'd be
> > > > > > quite a debatable use, so maybe not even that. Most likely we'll never
> > > > > > need to add features here.
> > > > >
> > > > > init->features[] has no semantics yet so we can define it how we like,
> > > > > but I agree that the way I use it here is not necessarily the most
> > > > > natural.
> > > > >
> > > > > OTOH, we cannot use features[] for "mandatory" features like erratum
> > > > > workarounds, because current userspace just ignores these bits.
> > > >
> > > > It would have to learn to look here if that's how we started using it,
> > > > but it'd be better to invent something else that wouldn't appear as
> > > > abusive if we're going to teach userspace new stuff anyway.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rather, these bits would be for features that are considered beneficial
> > > > > but must be off by default (due to incompatibility risks across nodes,
> > > > > or due to ABI impacts). Just blindly using the preferred target
> > > > > already risks configuring a vcpu that won't work across all nodes in
> > > > > your cluster.
> > > >
> > > > KVM usually advertises optional features through capabilities. A device
> > > > (vcpu device, in this case) ioctl can also be used to check for feature
> > > > availability.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So I'm not convinced that there is any useful interpretation of
> > > > > features[] unless we interpret it as suggested in this patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you elaborate why you think it should be used with a more
> > > > > concrete example?
> > > >
> > > > I'm advocating that it *not* be used here. I think it should be used
> > > > like the PMU feature uses it - and the PMU feature doesn't set a bit
> > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > That said, I think defining the feature bit makes sense. ATM, I'm feeling
> > > > > > like we'll want to model the user interface for SVE like PMU (using VCPU
> > > > > > device ioctls).
> > > > >
> > > > > Some people expressed concerns about the ioctls becoming order-sensitive.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the SVE case we don't want people enabling/disabling/reconfiguring
> > > > > "silicon" features like SVE after the vcpu starts executing.
> > > > >
> > > > > We will need an extra ioctl() for configuring the allowed SVE vector
> > > > > lengths though. I don't see a way around that. So maybe we have to
> > > > > solve the ordering problem anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's why I'm thinking that the vcpu device ioctls is probably the
> > > > right way to go. The SVE group can have its own "finalize" request that
> > > > allows all other SVE ioctls to be in any order prior to it.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > By current approach (not in this series) was to have VCPU_INIT return
> > > > > -EINPROGRESS or similar if SVE is enabled in features[]: this indicates
> > > > > that certain setup ioctls are required before the vcpu can run.
> > > > >
> > > > > This may be overkill / not the best approach though. I can look at
> > > > > vcpu device ioctls as an alternative.
> > > >
> > > > With a "finalize" attribute if SVE isn't finalized by VCPU_INIT or
> > > > KVM_RUN time, then SVE just won't be enabled for that VCPU.
> > >
> > > So I suppose we could do something like this:
> > >
> > > * Advertise SVE availability through a vcpu device capability (I need
> > > to check how that works).
> > >
> > > * SVE-aware userspace that understands SVE can do the relevant
> > > vcpu device ioctls to configure SVE and turn it on: these are only
> > > permitted before the vcpu runs. We might require an explicit
> > > "finish SVE setup" ioctl to be issued before the vcpu can run.
> > >
> > > * Finally, the vcpu is set running by userspace as normal.
> > >
> > > Marc or Christoffer was objecting to me previously that this may be an
> > > abuse of vcpu device ioctls, because SVE is a CPU feature rather than a
> > > device. I guess it depends on how you define "device" -- I'm not sure
> > > where to draw the line.
> >
> > I initially advocated for a VCPU device ioctl as well, because it's a
> > less crowded number space that gives you more flexibility. Marc did
> > have a strong point that vcpu *devices* implies something else than
> > features though.
> >
> > I think you (a) definitely want to announce SVE support via a
> > capability, and (b) only set the preferred target flag if enabling SVE
> > *generally* gives you a VM more like the real hardware with similar
> > performance on some system.
> >
> > I'm personally fine with both feature flags and vcpu device ioctls. If
> > using vcpu device ioctls gives you an obvious way to set attributes
> > relating to SVE, e.g. the vector length, then I think that's a strong
> > argument for that approach.
>
> There is another option I'm tending towards, which is simply to have
> a "set vector lengths" ioctl (whether presented as a vcpu device
> ioctl or a random arch ioctl).

Someone complained once about adding too many arch ioctls because there
is a limited number space for doing so, but I'm not sure if that was and
still a valid concern.

>
> If that ioctl() fails then SVE support is not available.
>
> If it succeeds, it will update its arguments to indicate which
> vector lengths are enabled (if different).
>
> Old userspace, or userspace that doesn't want to use SVE, would
> not use this ioctl at all.
>
> It would also do no harm additionally to advertise this as a
> capability, though I wonder whether it's necessary to do so (?)
>

It is customary to expose features via capabilities. I have a vague
recollection that tools like libvirt negotiate capabilities across
systems and would need more plumbing to discover features by probing an
ioctl instead.

Thanks,
-Christoffer