From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6962C4332F for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:47:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4N6FtH6fWZz3f35 for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 04:47:35 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=ftWxPl3+; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=google.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::629; helo=mail-pl1-x629.google.com; envelope-from=seanjc@google.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=ftWxPl3+; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4N6FsG0yndz3c1K for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 04:46:40 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id d20so13758275plr.10 for ; Tue, 08 Nov 2022 09:46:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cjSjC5m99kmUUHYC704oOlI8KJi6LTudhKVnFW3q+Mo=; b=ftWxPl3+8IfelsK/irLrvblaLrX6dvTk43ZU1RGb7E7QhEuhpuFGQnZUs1B/6eqA8Y 9uQybJjBJrLcnswih9ZuqdP/IGzw5N1LHsBYZwMjKm4pxbrW1ieLuxCyIbeQvnPHGIX9 KlKI+02Y2PtkvzGrkUCj7EVO4k0DJZDFtOtuUtFMvCioPX+FiFS160StdFwaRhG4AwZY /X/0r60JYMQEe4UtsauftLe+islfrGWTT7n2RWyEhP6x94J5Vb4QTPr7DjEYHP04yepW KF97tjKStfZxjB8uLonmnyGRloE774fNFuZ/STi6vuLRLYYB1EDXjhtfDOqD4TBoTzbU ZVkg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=cjSjC5m99kmUUHYC704oOlI8KJi6LTudhKVnFW3q+Mo=; b=H03ktnF7w2TgtFv0jPk22f+MUQNV9FBcTEEfZiZTQ4iVhj6nwt3lxN6LLGqJlrJC73 ILEkHoMCFyu3gVtn5Ev5hQ7imohqV51d0myNDB3isRa3EBUUXMlfoV8AjbC0FpGh6l0o C1iccdT96mwKqMwfYDItTO1ofmq9x17VNgM5D/0KZtFu47Ci21kpqgcTYCqpAtZUXEki h80UeofAzouQhD1m8+QsLp3b7pA5iohjgjs2VEMxbZ2+1Z3YRsj2Gv/g4x0um5QL2Sab 2TWgjXTrekH7imoEYvXG0TxFm3qQBQ9WjEOUbpv1hzRaMZT6MvwoFVy4d6BfjBzDYriQ YzDg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1QWxMiQt6xxqMBXis3olnKL6GjSewHRsTuOZ+5EICMXp3rfy4K LGPq5xPyM+/D0dKGhZWfsV2tYg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6IejjlUU0y+myBNmX6xdBJY00CqsdAF2QTJKOsZh5WixYj1ODA6TQRcmab3f8JPfGm8K7ciQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ea04:b0:187:4923:56f4 with SMTP id s4-20020a170902ea0400b00187492356f4mr35142106plg.97.1667929596484; Tue, 08 Nov 2022 09:46:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (7.104.168.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.168.104.7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b9-20020a170902d50900b00185402cfedesm7283578plg.246.2022.11.08.09.46.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 08 Nov 2022 09:46:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 17:46:32 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson To: Isaku Yamahata Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/44] KVM: Rework kvm_init() and hardware enabling Message-ID: References: <20221102231911.3107438-1-seanjc@google.com> <20221104071749.GC1063309@ls.amr.corp.intel.com> <20221107214634.GE1063309@ls.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221107214634.GE1063309@ls.amr.corp.intel.com> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Matthew Rosato , David Hildenbrand , Yuan Yao , Paul Walmsley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Claudio Imbrenda , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Janosch Frank , Marc Zyngier , Huacai Chen , Aleksandar Markovic , James Morse , Christian Borntraeger , Chao Gao , Eric Farman , Albert Ou , Suzuki K Poulose , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Atish Patra , kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, Thomas Gleixner , Alexandru Elisei , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Isaku Yamahata , Fabiano Rosas , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Oliver Upton , Palmer Dabbelt , kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Anup Patel , Paolo Bonzini , Vitaly Kuznetsov , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Mon, Nov 07, 2022, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 08:27:14PM +0000, > Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > > > Thanks for the patch series. I the rebased TDX KVM patch series and it worked. > > > Since cpu offline needs to be rejected in some cases(To keep at least one cpu > > > on a package), arch hook for cpu offline is needed. > > > > I hate to bring this up because I doubt there's a real use case for SUSPEND with > > TDX, but the CPU offline path isn't just for true offlining of CPUs. When the > > system enters SUSPEND, only the initiating CPU goes through kvm_suspend()+kvm_resume(), > > all responding CPUs go through CPU offline+online. I.e. disallowing all CPUs from > > going "offline" will prevent suspending the system. > > The current TDX KVM implementation disallows CPU package from offline only when > TDs are running. If no TD is running, CPU offline is allowed. So before > SUSPEND, TDs need to be killed via systemd or something. After killing TDs, the > system can enter into SUSPEND state. Ah, I assumed offlining was disallowed if TDX was enabled. > > I don't see anything in the TDX series or the specs that suggests suspend+resume > > is disallowed when TDX is enabled, so blocking that seems just as wrong as > > preventing software from soft-offlining CPUs. > > When it comes to SUSPEND, it means suspend-to-idle, ACPI S1, S3, or S4. > suspend-to-idle doesn't require CPU offline. > > Although CPU related spec doesn't mention about S3, the ACPI spec says > > 7.4.2.2 System _S1 State (Sleeping with Processor Context Maintained) > The processor-complex context is maintained. > > 7.4.2.4 System _S3 State or 7.4.2.5 System _S4 State > The processor-complex context is not maintained. > > It's safe to say the processor context related to TDX is complex, I think. > Let me summarize the situation. What do you think? > > - While no TD running: > No additional limitation on CPU offline. > > - On TD creation: > If any of whole cpu package is software offlined, TD creation fails. > Alternative: forcibly online necessary CPUs, create TD, and offline CPUs The alternative isn't really viable because there's no way the kernel can guarantee a CPU can be onlined, i.e. the kernel would need to fallback of disallowing TD creation anyways. > - TD running: > Although it's not required to keep all CPU packages online, keep CPU package > from offlining for TD destruction. > > - TD destruction: > If any of whole cpu package is software offlined, TD destruction fails. > The current implementation prevents any cpu package from offlinining during > TD running. > Alternative: > - forcibly online necessary CPUs, destruct TD, and offline CPUs again and > allow CPU package to offline > - Stash TDX resources somewhere. When cpu packages are onlined, free those > release. > > - On SUSPEND: > TODO: Allow CPU offline if S1 is requested. Is this actually a TODO? I assume the kernel doesn't actually try to offline CPUs in this case, i.e. it Just Works. > - suspend-to-idle: nothing to do because cpu offline isn't required > - ACPI S1: Need to allow offline CPUs. This can be implemented by referencing > suspend_state_t pm_suspend_target_state is PM_SUSPEND_TO_STANBY. > - ACPI S3/S4: refuse cpu offline. The system needs to kill all TDs before > starting SUSPEND process. This is what is implemented. Looks good, disallowing SUSPEND with active TDs is a reasonable tradeoff. As above, I highly doubt anyone actually cares.