[PATCH] arm64/kvm: Add generic v8 KVM target

[christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:56:39AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 17/07/15 10:33, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 11:10:09AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 03/07/15 10:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>> On 3 July 2015 at 09:28, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 03/07/15 09:12, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>>>> I would still like to see the proponents of this patch say
> >>>>> what their model is for userspace support of cross-host migration,
> >>>>> if we're abandoning the model the current API envisages.
> >>>>
> >>>> I thought we had discussed this above, and don't really see this as a
> >>>> departure from the current model:
> >>>>
> >>>> - "-cpu host" results in "GENERIC" being used: VM can only be migrated
> >>>> to the exact same HW (no cross-host migration). MIDR should probably
> >>>> become RO.
> >>>> - "-cpu host" results in "A57" (for example): VM can be migrated to a
> >>>> variety of A57 platforms, and allow for some fuzzing on the revision (or
> >>>> accept any revision).
> >>>> - "-cpu a57" forces an A57 model to be emulated, always. It is always
> >>>> possible to migrate such a VM on any host.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think only the first point is new, but the last two are what we have
> >>>> (or what we should have).
> >>>
> >>> Right, but the implicit idea of this GENERIC patch seems to
> >>> be that new host CPU types don't get their own KVM_ARM_TARGET_*
> >>> constant, and are thus forever unable to do cross-host migration.
> >>> It's not clear to me why we'd want to have new CPUs be second
> >>> class citizens like that.
> >>
> >> I certainly don't want to see *any* CPU be a second class citizen. But
> >> let's face it, we're adding more and more targets that don't implement
> >> anything new, and just satisfy themselves with the generic implementation.
> >>
> >> I see it as an incentive to provide something useful (tables of all the
> >> registers with default values?) so that cross-host migration becomes a
> >> reality instead of the figment of our imagination (as it is now). If it
> >> wasn't already ABI, I'd have removed the existing targets until we have
> >> something meaningful to put there.
> > 
> > What we're doing now certainly seems silly, because we're adding kernel
> > patches without bringing anything to the table...
> > 
> >>
> >> Now, I also have my own doubts about cross-host migration (timers
> >> anyone?). But I don't see the above as a change in policy. More as a way
> >> to outline the fact that we currently don't have the right level of
> >> information/infrastructure to support it at all.
> >>
> > The one thing that I've lost track of here (sorry) is whether we're
> > enforcing the inability to do cross-host migration with the generic
> > target when this patch is merged or do we leave this up to the graces of
> > userspace?
> 
> The jury is still out on that one.
> 
> I was initially not going to enforce anything (after all, this isn't
> that different from the whole CNTVOFF story where we allow userspace to
> shoot itself in the foot), but I'm equally happy to make MIDR_EL1
> read-only if we're creating a generic guest...
> 
Looking at the code, midr_el1 is already an invariant register, so isn't
this automagically enforced already?

In that case, I'm fine with merging this patch.

-Christoffer