From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@intel.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Expose tsc deadline timer cpuid to guest
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:18:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F4BBAEC.2040603@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DE8DF0795D48FD4CA783C40EC82923350B5F29@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On 2012-02-27 17:05, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-01-07 19:23, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> On 2012-01-05 18:07, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry, it remains bogus to expose the tsc deadline timer feature
>>>>>> on machines < pc-1.1. That's just like we introduced kvmclock
>>>>>> only to pc-0.14 onward. The reason is that guest OSes so far
>>>>>> running on qemu-1.0 or older without deadline timer support must
>>>>>> not find that feature when being migrated to a host with qemu-1.1
>>>>>> in pc-1.0 compat mode. Yes, the user can explicitly disable it,
>>>>>> but that is not the idea of legacy machine models. They should
>>>>>> provide the very same environment that older qemu versions
>>>>>> offered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite clear about this point.
>>>>> Per my understanding, if a kvm guest running on an older qemu
>>>>> without tsc deadline timer support,
>>>>> then after migrate, the guest would still cannot find tsc deadline
>>>>> feature, no matter older or newer host/qemu/pc-xx it migrate to.
>>>>
>>>> What should prevent this? The feature flags are not part of the
>>>> vmstate. They are part of the vm configuration which is not migrated
>>>> but defined by starting qemu on the target host.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks! understand this point ("They are part of the vm
>>> configuration which is not migrated but defined by starting qemu on
>>> the target host").
>>>
>>> But kvmclock example still cannot satisfy the purpose "guest running
>>> on old qemu/pc-0.13 without kvmclock support must not find kvmclock
>>> feature when being migrated to a host with new qemu/pc-0.13 compat
>>> mode". After migration, guest can possibily find kvmclock
>>> feature CPUID.0x40000001.KVM_FEATURE_CLOCKSOURCE: pc_init1(...,
>>> kvmclock_enabled) { pc_cpus_init(cpu_model); // the point to
>>> decide and expose cpuid features to guest
>>>
>>> if (kvmclock_enabled) { // the difference point between
>>> pc-0.13 vs. pc-0.14, related nothing to cpuid features.
>>> kvmclock_create(); } }
>>
>> Right, not a perfect example: the cpuid feature is not influenced by
>> this mechanism, only the fact if a kvmclock device (for save/restore)
>> should be created. I guess we ignored this back then, only focusing on
>> the more obvious issue of the addition device.
>>
>>>
>>> Seems currently there is no good way to satisfy "guest running on
>>> old qemu/pc-xx without feature A support must not find feature A
>>> when being migrated to a host with new qemu/pc-xx compat mode", i.e.
>>> considering
>>> * if running with '-cpu host' then migrate;
>>> * each time we add a new cpuid feature it need add one or more new
>>> machine model? is it necessary to bind pc-xx with cpuid feature?
>>> * logically cpuid features should better be controlled by cpu model,
>>> not by machine model.
>>
>> The compatibility machines define the possible cpu models. If I select
>
> How does machine define possible cpu models?
> cpu model defined by qemu option '-cpu ...', while machine model defined by '-machine ...'
>
>> pc-0.14, e.g. -cpu kvm64 should not give me features that 0.14 was not
>> exposing.
>>
>
> in such case, it's '-cpu kvm64' who take effect to decide what cpuid features would exposed to guest, not '-machine pc-0.14'.
>
> IMO, what our patch need to do is to expose a cpuid feature to guest (CPUID.01H:ECX.TSC_Deadline[bit 24]), it decided by cpu model, not machine model:
> pc_init1(..., cpu_model, ...)
> {
> pc_cpus_init(cpu_model); // this is the whole logic exposing cpuid features to guest
> ...
> }
>
> Do I misunderstanding something?
My point is that
qemu-version-A [-cpu whatever]
should provide the same VM as
qemu-version-B -machine pc-A [-cpu whatever]
specifically if you leave out the cpu specification.
So the compat machine could establish a feature mask (e.g. append some
"-tsc_deadline" in this case). But, indeed, we need a new channel for this.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-27 17:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-28 21:55 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Expose tsc deadline timer cpuid to guest Liu, Jinsong
2012-01-04 16:48 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-01-05 20:07 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-01-05 20:34 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-01-07 18:23 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-01-08 21:24 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-02-27 16:05 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-02-27 17:18 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2012-02-28 10:30 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-03-06 7:49 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-03-06 10:14 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-03-09 18:27 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-03-09 18:56 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-03-09 19:09 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-03-09 20:52 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-03-10 1:07 ` Andreas Färber
2012-03-11 18:54 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-03-12 17:21 ` Eduardo Habkost
2012-03-25 8:51 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-03-09 19:29 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-03-19 22:35 ` Rik van Riel
2012-03-20 12:53 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-03-20 13:33 ` Eduardo Habkost
2012-03-23 3:49 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-03-23 13:46 ` Eduardo Habkost
2012-03-23 14:17 ` Liu, Jinsong
[not found] <20120419200331.GB19463@otherpad.lan.raisama.net>
[not found] ` <4F913696.20301@siemens.com>
[not found] ` <20120420150005.GW3169@otherpad.lan.raisama.net>
[not found] ` <4F917E75.2080003@siemens.com>
[not found] ` <20120420153656.GX3169@otherpad.lan.raisama.net>
[not found] ` <4F926086.3020307@web.de>
[not found] ` <20120423144818.GA3169@otherpad.lan.raisama.net>
[not found] ` <4F9583DD.10807@siemens.com>
[not found] ` <20120423200214.GG3169@otherpad.lan.raisama.net>
[not found] ` <4F96CF9F.9060302@siemens.com>
[not found] ` <20120424171925.GT3169@otherpad.lan.raisama.net>
2012-06-14 19:02 ` Liu, Jinsong
2012-06-14 19:12 ` Eduardo Habkost
2012-06-14 19:18 ` Liu, Jinsong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F4BBAEC.2040603@siemens.com \
--to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=alexey.zaytsev@gmail.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=jinsong.liu@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).