qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aaron Lindsay <aaron@os.amperecomputing.com>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Subject: ARM Snapshots Not Backwards-Compatible
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 23:01:16 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YBogDGJRU5pcDKmi@strawberry.localdomain> (raw)

Hello,

I'm attempting to restore an AArch64 snapshot taken on QEMU 4.1.0 on
QEMU 5.2.0, using system mode. My previous impression, possibly from
https://wiki.qemu.org/Features/Migration/Troubleshooting#Basics was that
this ought to work:

> Note that QEMU supports migrating forward between QEMU versions

Note that I'm using qemu-system-aarch64 with -loadvm.

However, I've run into several issues I thought I should report. The
first of them was that this commit changed the address of CBAR, which
resulted in a mismatch of the register IDs in `cpu_post_load` in
target/arm/machine.c:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/patch/20190927144249.29999-2-peter.maydell@linaro.org/

The second was that several system registers have changed which bits are
allowed to be written in different circumstances, seemingly as a result
of a combination of bugfixes and implementation of additional behavior.
These hit errors detected in `write_list_to_cpustate` in
target/arm/helper.c.

The third is that meanings of the bits in env->features (as defined by
`enum arm_features` in target/arm/cpu.h) has shifted. For example,
ARM_FEATURE_PXN, ARM_FEATURE_CRC, ARM_FEATURE_VFP, ARM_FEATURE_VFP3,
ARM_FEATURE_VFP4 have all been removed and ARM_FEATURE_V8_1M has been
added since 4.1.0. Heck, even I have added a field there in the past.
Unfortunately, these additions/removals mean that when env->features is
saved on one version and restored on another the bits can mean different
things. Notably, the removal of the *VFP features means that a snapshot
of a CPU reporting it supports ARM_FEATURE_VFP3 on 4.1.0 thinks it's now
ARM_FEATURE_M on 5.2.0!

My guess, given the numerous issues and the additional complexity
required to properly implement backwards-compatible snapshotting, is
that this is not a primary goal. However, if it is a goal, what steps
can/should we take to support it more thoroughly?

Thanks!

-Aaron

p.s. Now for an admission: the snapshots I'm testing with were
originally taken with `-cpu max`. This was unintentional, and I
understand if the response is that I can't expect `-cpu max` checkpoints
to work across QEMU versions... but I also don't think that all of these
issues can be blamed on that (notably CBAR and env->features).


             reply	other threads:[~2021-02-03  4:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-03  4:01 Aaron Lindsay [this message]
2021-02-03  8:21 ` ARM Snapshots Not Backwards-Compatible Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2021-02-03 10:27   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2021-02-03 10:38     ` Peter Maydell
2021-02-03 10:49       ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2021-02-03 10:52         ` Peter Maydell
2021-02-03 10:59           ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2021-02-03 16:04             ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2021-02-03 12:44           ` Andrew Jones
2021-02-03 15:45             ` aaron--- via
2021-02-03 15:53               ` Andrew Jones
2021-02-03 10:01 ` Peter Maydell
2021-02-03 14:58   ` Aaron Lindsay
2021-02-03 15:02     ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2021-02-03 15:10       ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2021-02-03 15:26         ` Peter Maydell
2021-02-03 15:54           ` Aaron Lindsay
2021-02-03 16:13           ` [PATCH] target/arm: Don't migrate CPUARMState.features Aaron Lindsay
2021-02-03 16:24             ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2021-02-03 20:06             ` Andrew Jones
2021-02-08 13:11             ` Peter Maydell
2021-02-03 15:42         ` ARM Snapshots Not Backwards-Compatible aaron--- via

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=YBogDGJRU5pcDKmi@strawberry.localdomain \
    --to=aaron@os.amperecomputing.com \
    --cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
    --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).