Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] KVM: PPC: Expose CPU compatibility modes for nested guests

[Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>]

Hi Amit,

Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com> writes:

> On POWER systems, newer processor generations can operate in compatibility
> modes corresponding to earlier generations (e.g., a Power11 system running
> in Power10 compatibility mode). In such cases, the effective CPU level
> exposed to guests differs from the physical processor generation.
>
> This creates a problem for nested virtualization. When booting a nested KVM
> guest (L2) inside a host KVM guest (L1) running in a compatibility mode,
> userspace (e.g., QEMU) may derive the CPU model from the raw hardware PVR
> and attempt to configure the nested guest accordingly. However, the L1
> partition is constrained by the compatibility level negotiated with the
> hypervisor (L0), and requests exceeding that level are rejected, leading to
> guest boot failures such as:
>
>   KVM-NESTEDv2: couldn't set guest wide elements
>
> This series provides a mechanism for userspace to query the effective CPU
> compatibility modes supported by the host, so it can select an appropriate
> CPU model for nested guests.
>
> To achieve this, the series introduces a new KVM capability and ioctl
> (KVM_CAP_PPC_COMPAT_CAPS / KVM_PPC_GET_COMPAT_CAPS) that expose the
> compatibility modes supported by the host.
>

Sorry, but I am somehow not convinced on whether we need all of this
machinary just to get these 3 bits of information, which we are
returning today.

Since KVM_CHECK_EXTENSION can already return an int, so why can't we use
KVM_CAP_PPC_COMPAT_CAPS itself and return the bitmap of supported compat
modes to the user?
Say if the cap is not supported, we can return 0, otherwise we can
return the bitmap of supported compat modes. This will easily allow us
to use 31-bits which as I see would be hardly a problem in the near
future. In the future if it grows - we can always use KVM_CAP_PPC_COMPAT_CAPS2.

This should reduce the code complexity both in the kernel and
userspace and we don't even need a new ioctl then.

Thoughts?

-ritesh