[RFC v2 REPOST] arm64: KVM: KVM API extensions for SVE

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

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 03:34:03PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 03:58:31PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 11:33:28AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > What if KVM_ARM_SVE_SET_VLS() were to yield 0 if the exact requested set
> > > of VLs was configured, -ERANGE if some subset was configured successfully
> > > (but not exactly the set requested), and the usual -EINVAL/-EIO/whatever
> > > if the set of VLs couldn't be configured at all?
> > 
> > Sounds good to me.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Then the probe would go like this:
> > > 
> > > 	__u64 vqs[SVE_VQ_MAX / 64] = { [0 ... SVE_VQ_MAX / 64 - 1] = ~(u64)0 };
> > > 	if (ioctl(vcpu_fd, KVM_ARM_SVE_SET_VLS, vqs) && errno != ERANGE))
> > > 		goto error;
> > > 
> > > 	ioctl(vcpu_fd, KVM_ARM_SVE_GET_VLS, vqs);
> > > 
> > > 	/* ... */
> > > 
> > > Another option would be for SVE_ARM_SVE_SET_VLS to write the resulting
> > > set back to its argument, possibly with the same 0/ERANGE/EINVAL semantics.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Alternatively, userspace would be require to do a KVM_ARM_SVE_GET_VLS,
> > > and check the resulting set:
> > > 
> > > 	/* ... */
> > > 	
> > > 	__u64 newvqs[SVE_VQ_MAX / 64];
> > > 	ioctl(vcpu_fd, KVM_ARM_SVE_GET_VLS, newvqs);
> > > 
> > > 	if (memcmp(vqs, newvqs, sizeof vqs))
> > > 		goto mismatch;
> > > 
> > > vcpu restore would need to treat any mismatch as an error:
> > > the exact requested set but be configurable, or the VM may go wrong.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I can parse this sentence or extract the meaning?
> 
> That was lazy language on my part.  I'll try to explain it better:
> 
> When the saved state of a migrating vcpu is being loaded into a
> newly-created vcpu on the target node, userspace needs a way to
> ensure that the set of VLs that vcpu will see when it runs is
> _exactly_ the same set it could see before migration.

Yes, and that should work fine with the -ERANGE proposal, right?

> 
> I called this out separately because it's different from the
> case of creating a brand-new VM: in the latter case, we can't the
> kernel to provide the best set of VLs possible, but it is not an
> error not to get every VL we asked for.
> 

This was another hard one:)

I think what you're saying is that it's technically not an error when
setting the VLs on a new VM, but it would be in the case of migration,
and therefore we need to tell userspace in both cases what happened, and
it can decide.

> > > Any opinion on which approach is best?
> > 
> > I think I prefer letting KVM_ARM_SVE_SET_VLS change the supplied vqs,
> > since having it be two separate ioctls always potentially leaves room
> > for some other thread having modified the set in the meantime (or making
> > a programmer doubt if this can be the case) where a single ioctl() will
> > look atomic.
> > 
> > The user can always call KVM_ARM_SVE_GET_VLS afterwards and should get
> > the same result.
> 
> OK, I'll go with changing the supplied vqs for KVM_ARM_SVE_SET_VLS,
> but I'll retain the -ERANGE semantics (even if technically redundant)
> since that's harder to forget to check.

Agree, that should definitely be part of it.

Thanks,
-Christoffer