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.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (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 96217C3ABD8 for ; Fri, 16 May 2025 15:13:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uFwkr-0002RG-F3; Fri, 16 May 2025 11:13:46 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uFwko-0002Qo-Mt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2025 11:13:43 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uFwkm-0005Qq-OK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2025 11:13:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1747408419; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9Ruv5/J5VYkKEWrD/cz7hCgfh11LAVpqqxOAHUaNUOI=; b=cFVJom1qaiCFNJIasB4w6B/QSTnqmOxyxPa4uHpuCxCAMzH8hwD/7p0a05+DHmXYzJ2r4Q O895ZjmhPoehshEcv0kDx+8g7SUFTgaIm2OOIo0/fHWK+Ocy55mh+4H2Zao7fH9lBjXupu 4KZoiZyV79u995bFYFo65pvz0k1Jctg= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-456-cadUfcVzOxujBeu41zZfUA-1; Fri, 16 May 2025 11:13:37 -0400 X-MC-Unique: cadUfcVzOxujBeu41zZfUA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: cadUfcVzOxujBeu41zZfUA_1747408415 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (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 mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56D261954235; Fri, 16 May 2025 15:13:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dhcp-192-216.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.216]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A890119560AE; Fri, 16 May 2025 15:13:32 +0000 (UTC) From: Cornelia Huck To: =?utf-8?Q?Daniel_P=2E_Berrang=C3=A9?= Cc: eric.auger.pro@gmail.com, eric.auger@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, peter.maydell@linaro.org, richard.henderson@linaro.org, alex.bennee@linaro.org, maz@kernel.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev, sebott@redhat.com, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com, armbru@redhat.com, abologna@redhat.com, jdenemar@redhat.com, agraf@csgraf.de, shahuang@redhat.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, philmd@linaro.org, pbonzini@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] arm/cpu: more customization for the kvm host cpu model In-Reply-To: Organization: "Red Hat GmbH, Sitz: Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 12, D-85630 Grasbrunn, Handelsregister: Amtsgericht =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=BCnchen=2C?= HRB 153243, =?utf-8?Q?Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer=3A?= Ryan Barnhart, Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Amy Ross" References: <20250414163849.321857-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20250414163849.321857-9-cohuck@redhat.com> <875xi3cig5.fsf@redhat.com> <87v7q0bocp.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.38.3 (https://notmuchmail.org) Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 17:13:30 +0200 Message-ID: <87sel4bnc5.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=cohuck@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -37 X-Spam_score: -3.8 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.686, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Fri, May 16 2025, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 04:51:34PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Wed, May 14 2025, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 wrote: >>=20 >> > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 13 2025, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 wr= ote: >> >>=20 >> >> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 06:38:47PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> >> >> From: Eric Auger >> >> >>=20 >> >> >> If the interface for writable ID registers is available, expose ui= nt64 >> >> >> SYSREG properties for writable ID reg fields exposed by the host >> >> >> kernel. Properties are named SYSREG__ with REG and FI= ELD >> >> >> being those used in linux arch/arm64/tools/sysreg. This done by >> >> >> matching the writable fields retrieved from the host kernel agains= t the >> >> >> generated description of sysregs. >> >> >>=20 >> >> >> An example of invocation is: >> >> >> -cpu host,SYSREG_ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1_DP=3D0x0 >> >> >> which sets DP field of ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1 to 0. >> >> > >> >> > For the value you are illustrating 0x0 - is this implying that >> >> > all the flags take an arbitrary integer hex value ? >> >> > >> >> > This would be different from x86, where CPU feature flags are >> >> > a boolean on/off state. >> >>=20 >> >> Most of the fields are 4 bits, the allowed values vary (there are also >> >> some fields that are single bits, or wider.) The FEAT_xxx values (whi= ch >> >> can be expressed via ID register fields, or a combination thereof) are >> >> mostly boolean, but there are also some of them that can take values. >> >>=20 >> >> We could cook up pseudo-features that are always on/off, but I don't >> >> like that approach: they would be QEMU only, whereas the ID register >> >> fields and FEAT_xxx features are all defined in the Arm documentation. >> > >> > Fortunately from a libvirt POV we can likely expand our config >> > to cope with hex values for arm features without too much >> > trouble. >> > >> >>=20 >> >> An additional difference from x86 would be that FEAT_xxx featues are = not >> >> neccessarily configurable (only if the host kernel supports changing = the >> >> ID register field(s) backing the feature.) >> > >> > Is the kernel able to tell us which ones are configurable and which >> > are not ? If so, it'd be helpful to expose this info in QAPI some >> > place. >>=20 >> The kernel can tell us which ID register fields are writable (we won't >> generate properties if we don't.) For FEAT_xxx, this depends on how >> we'll end up handling them (maybe we should only expose them if all ID >> register bits backing them are actually writable.) >>=20 >> What worries me a bit is that QEMU exposing a certain set of FEAT_xxx >> values could be interpreted as "those features are present, any other >> features aren't", while it is only the list of configurable features. >>=20 >> Another issue: If libvirt is trying to baseline two cpus, it might end >> up creating a model that looks sane on paper, but migrations will fail >> because there are differences in non-writable bits. It would be much >> better if libvirt could detect beforehand that there was no common >> determinator. Not yet sure how to handle this. > > For "host" model that's probably not the end of the world. Apps have > already given up strong guarantee of migration compat by using 'host' > CPU and so in that context libvirt's feature comparison can assume > the underlying silicon is a match and just compare features. > > > In that sense the ability to list features and baseline two cpus > lets you guarantee that whatever CPU you boot the guest on, will > have at least those requested features. That's useful, even if it > does not give you a strong migration compat guarantee. > > Doing better would require info on non-writable features, and > possibly even that might not be sufficient to guarantee compat We'd probably want to use named models rather than 'host' for better generic handling, but that's a whole different can of worms that I'd prefer to keep closed right now. OTOH, 'host' with some features tweaked is already useful if you want to migrate across machines in a heterogeneous environment with known players (i.e. you know that the various machines only differ in features that you can actually configure.)