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

Dave Martin
2018-07-26T13:18:11Z

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.

The vcpu device approach might reduce the amount of weird special-case
API that needs to be invented, which is probably a good thing.

Cheers
---Dave