From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
"Jordan Justen (Intel address)" <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>,
qemu devel list <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Kevin O'Connor <kevin@koconnor.net>,
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
Michael Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 for-2.9 0/3] q35: add negotiable broadcast SMI
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:41:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fbc5474c-190e-355c-7c4f-73fbb7580790@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161125151008.139e9f37@nial.brq.redhat.com>
On 25/11/2016 15:10, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 03:55:29 -0500 (EST)
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> if 0x30000 were covered by SMRR range, then OSPM wouldn't able to
>>> place its own code there and there wouldn't be any need in side interfaces
>>> to put and get CPU in/from some undefined by spec state (parked).
>>>
>>> But above would imply a large block allocated at 0x30000 to fit all
>>> possible CPUs+1, not sure if it's doable (maybe edk2 wouldn't have
>>> big issues with reserving large block in lowmem).
>>
>> If you mean that the default SMRR range would include 0x30000 for an hotplugged
>> CPU, that would work but it is a significant departure from real hardware.
>> I'd rather avoid that.
>
> But that's guest side only solution to guest problem, that won't require
> any assistance from QEMU/KVM.
No, I don't think it can be guest-only. The initial value of SMRRs is
undefined, and SMRRs are per processor. The newly-hotplugged CPU has no
SMRRs defined when it is started up.
> Baremetal would also benefit from it as it won't need to implement unpark
> logic anymore. it should also work for existing HW that has unpark logic.
>
> Do you have any pointers to how hardware does unparking now?
The firmware tells the BMC to do it. I don't know what the firmware-BMC
interface looks like.
>>> It looks like we need only SMM accessible guest/host interface to make
>>> CPU unparking secure or cover default SMBASE by SMRR.
>>
>> Yes, unparking would be accessible only from SMM if the unparking feature
>> is negotiated.
>
> I suppose we could check in MMIO handler that all CPUs are in SMM mode
> before allowing unparking or ignore command if they are not.
>
> For compat reasons unpark should be optin feature (i.e. firmware should
> explicitly enable it to avoid breaking existing configurations (SeaBIOS))
Yes, of course---that's why I'm bringing up in the context of this series.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-28 9:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-18 10:36 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 for-2.9 0/3] q35: add negotiable broadcast SMI Laszlo Ersek
2016-11-18 10:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 for-2.9 1/3] hw/isa/apm: introduce callback for APM_STS_IOPORT writes Laszlo Ersek
2016-11-18 10:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 for-2.9 2/3] hw/isa/lpc_ich9: add SMI feature negotiation via APM_STS Laszlo Ersek
2016-11-18 10:36 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 for-2.9 3/3] hw/isa/lpc_ich9: ICH9_APM_STS_F_BROADCAST_SMI: inject SMI on all VCPUs Laszlo Ersek
2016-11-18 14:10 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 for-2.9 0/3] q35: add negotiable broadcast SMI Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-23 15:48 ` Laszlo Ersek
2016-11-23 22:35 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-11-24 0:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
2016-11-24 0:31 ` Laszlo Ersek
2016-11-24 0:38 ` Kevin O'Connor
2016-11-24 4:29 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-24 8:37 ` Laszlo Ersek
2016-11-25 4:00 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-11-25 12:31 ` Laszlo Ersek
2016-11-25 12:40 ` Laszlo Ersek
2016-11-28 9:01 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2016-11-28 10:22 ` Laszlo Ersek
2016-11-28 11:53 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-11-25 14:22 ` Igor Mammedov
2016-11-24 14:55 ` Igor Mammedov
2016-11-24 17:05 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-11-24 18:02 ` Igor Mammedov
2016-11-25 8:55 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-11-25 14:10 ` Igor Mammedov
2016-11-28 9:41 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2016-11-28 11:24 ` Igor Mammedov
2016-11-28 11:51 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=fbc5474c-190e-355c-7c4f-73fbb7580790@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=jordan.l.justen@intel.com \
--cc=kevin@koconnor.net \
--cc=kraxel@redhat.com \
--cc=lersek@redhat.com \
--cc=michael.d.kinney@intel.com \
--cc=mst@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).