Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 0/4] target-ppc: Add FWNMI support in qemu for powerKVM guests

[Aravinda Prasad <aravinda@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thursday 13 November 2014 09:27 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:45:05PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 11 November 2014 08:54 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 12:42:03PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>>>> This series of patches add support for fwnmi in powerKVM guests.
>>>>
>>>> Currently upon machine check exception, if the address in
>>>> error belongs to guest then KVM invokes guest's NMI interrupt
>>>> vector 0x200.
>>>>
>>>> This patch series adds functionality where the guest's 0x200
>>>> interrupt vector is patched such that QEMU gets control. QEMU
>>>> then builds error log and reports the error to OS registered
>>>> machine check handlers through RTAS space.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from this, the patch series also takes care of synchronization
>>>> when multiple processors encounter machine check at or about the
>>>> same time.
>>>>
>>>> The patch set was tested by simulating a machine check error in
>>>> the guest.
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>>     - Incorporated review comments
>>>>     - Byte codes in patch 4/4 are now moved to
>>>>       pc-bios/spapr-rtas/spapr-rtas.S as instructions.
>>>>     - Defined the RTAS blob in-memory layout.
>>>>     - FIX: save and restore cr register in the trampoline
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>     - Re-based to github.com/agraf/qemu.git  branch: ppc-next
>>>>     - Merged patches 4 and 5.
>>>>     - Incorporated other review comments
>>>
>>> So, this may not still be possible depending on whether the KVM side
>>> of this is already merged, but it occurs to me that there's a simpler
>>> way.
>>
>> The KVM part is already merged. Commit ID: 74845bc
> 
> Ok, that makes life harder, though I guess without the qemu code
> merged, no-one would be using yet, so it's not impossible to change still.
> 
>>> Rather than mucking about with having to update the hypervisor on the
>>> RTAS location, they have qemu copy the code out of RTAS, patch it and
>>> copy it back into the vector, you could instead do this:
>>
>> Though this is possible, I have coupe of comments below
>>
>>>
>>>   1. Make KVM instead of immediately delivering a 0x200 for a guest
>>> machine check, cause a special exit to qemu.
>>>
>>>   2. Have the register-nmi RTAS call store the guest side MC handler
>>> address in the spapr structure, but perform no actual guest code
>>> patching.
>>>
>>>   3. Allocate the error log buffer independently from the RTAS blob,
>>> so qemu always knows where it is.
>>
>> As per PAPR, the error log buffer should be part of RTAS blob and the
>> guest kernel explicitly checks if error log is inside RTAS blob.
>> This requires qemu to know the updated RTAS location by the OS which is
>> handled in patch 2/4.
> 
> Ugh, ok.  That's a pretty stupid interface requirement, even by PAPR
> standards, but I guess we're stuck with it.
> 
>>>   4. When qemu gets the MC exit condition, instead of going via a
>>> patched 0x200 vector, just directly set the guest register state and
>>> jump straight into the guest side MC handler.
>>
>> PAPR mentions:
>>
>> "R1–7.3.14–8: Once the OS has registered for NMI notification, the
>> platform firmware must intercept all System Reset Interrupts on all of
>> the OS’s processors."
>>
>> So do we need to go via 0x200?
> 
> I don't see why.  The hypervisor is already intercepting system resets
> and machine checks because it's a hypervisor, and from the PAPR
> guest's point of view, all it cares about is that you enter its
> registered handler with the expected information available.
> 
> I don't see that the guest cares whether you bounce via a vector in
> guest space or directly enter the guest supplied handler using
> hypervisor magic.  Patching the guest's vector actually seems a pretty
> awful hack that would only be necessary to work around limitations in
> the virtualization capabilities which I don't think we have as of POWER8.
> 

Agree.

> Btw, isn't a "System Reset Interrupt" vector 0x100, not vector 0x200?

"System Reset Interrupt" vector is 0x100. Machine Check Interrupt
is 0x200. The above "R1–7.3.14–8" extract was for System Reset. We have
one for Machine Check in R1–7.3.14–10.

> 

-- 
Regards,
Aravinda