Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 19/23] spapr: CPU hot unplug support

[Bharata B Rao]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:44:48PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 07:06:00PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > Support hot removal of CPU for sPAPR guests by sending the hot
> > unplug notification to the guest via EPOW interrupt.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  hw/ppc/spapr.c            | 78 
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  linux-headers/linux/kvm.h |  1 +
> >  target-ppc/kvm.c          |  7 +++++
> >  target-ppc/kvm_ppc.h      |  6 ++++
> >  4 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > index b48994b..7b8784d 100644
> > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > @@ -1468,6 +1468,12 @@ static void spapr_cpu_init(PowerPCCPU *cpu)
> >      qemu_register_reset(spapr_cpu_reset, cpu);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void spapr_cpu_destroy(PowerPCCPU *cpu)
> > +{
> > +    xics_cpu_destroy(spapr->icp, cpu);
> > +    qemu_unregister_reset(spapr_cpu_reset, cpu);
> > +}
> > +
> >  /* pSeries LPAR / sPAPR hardware init */
> >  static void ppc_spapr_init(MachineState *machine)
> >  {
> > @@ -1880,6 +1886,18 @@ static void spapr_cpu_hotplug_add(DeviceState *dev, 
> > CPUState *cs, Error **errp)
> >      }
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void spapr_cpu_hotplug_remove(DeviceState *dev, CPUState *cs,
> > +                                     Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +    PowerPCCPU *cpu = POWERPC_CPU(cs);
> > +    int id = ppc_get_vcpu_dt_id(cpu);
> > +    sPAPRDRConnector *drc =
> > +        spapr_dr_connector_by_id(SPAPR_DR_CONNECTOR_TYPE_CPU, id);
> > +    sPAPRDRConnectorClass *drck = SPAPR_DR_CONNECTOR_GET_CLASS(drc);
> > +
> > +    drck->detach(drc, dev, NULL, NULL, errp);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void spapr_cpu_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev,
> >                              Error **errp)
> >  {
> > @@ -1911,6 +1929,51 @@ static void spapr_cpu_plug(HotplugHandler 
> > *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev,
> >      return;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int spapr_cpu_unplug(Object *obj, void *opaque)
> > +{
> > +    Error **errp = opaque;
> > +    DeviceState *dev = DEVICE(obj);
> > +    CPUState *cs = CPU(dev);
> > +    PowerPCCPU *cpu = POWERPC_CPU(cs);
> > +    int id = ppc_get_vcpu_dt_id(cpu);
> > +    int smt = kvmppc_smt_threads();
> > +    sPAPRDRConnector *drc =
> > +        spapr_dr_connector_by_id(SPAPR_DR_CONNECTOR_TYPE_CPU, id);
> > +
> > +    spapr_cpu_destroy(cpu);
> 
> I may be misunderstanding something here, but don't you need to signal
> the removal to the guest (and get its ack) before you "physically"
> remove the cpu?

Oh yes, I should move this call to spapr_cpu_release().

> 
> > +    /*
> > +     * SMT threads return from here, only main thread (core) will
> > +     * continue and signal hot unplug event to the guest.
> > +     */
> > +    if ((id % smt) != 0) {
> > +        return 0;
> > +    }
> > +    g_assert(drc);
> > +
> > +    spapr_cpu_hotplug_remove(dev, cs, errp);
> > +    if (*errp) {
> > +        return -1;
> > +    }
> > +    spapr_hotplug_req_remove_event(drc);
> > +
> > +    return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int spapr_cpu_core_unplug(Object *obj, void *opaque)
> > +{
> > +    Error **errp = opaque;
> > +
> > +    object_child_foreach(obj, spapr_cpu_unplug, errp);
> > +    return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void spapr_cpu_socket_unplug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev,
> > +                            DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +    object_child_foreach(OBJECT(dev), spapr_cpu_core_unplug, errp);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void spapr_machine_device_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev,
> >                                        DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
> >  {
> > @@ -1926,10 +1989,21 @@ static void 
> > spapr_machine_device_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev,
> >      }
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void spapr_machine_device_unplug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev,
> > +                                      DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +    if (object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(dev), TYPE_CPU_SOCKET)) {
> > +        if (dev->hotplugged && spapr->dr_cpu_enabled) {
> > +            spapr_cpu_socket_unplug(hotplug_dev, dev, errp);
> > +        }
> > +    }
> > +}
> > +
> >  static HotplugHandler *spapr_get_hotpug_handler(MachineState *machine,
> >                                               DeviceState *dev)
> >  {
> > -    if (object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(dev), TYPE_CPU)) {
> > +    if (object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(dev), TYPE_CPU) ||
> > +        object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(dev), TYPE_CPU_SOCKET)) {
> >          return HOTPLUG_HANDLER(machine);
> >      }
> >      return NULL;
> > @@ -1953,6 +2027,8 @@ static void spapr_machine_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, 
> > void *data)
> >      mc->has_dynamic_sysbus = true;
> >      mc->get_hotplug_handler = spapr_get_hotpug_handler;
> >      hc->plug = spapr_machine_device_plug;
> > +    hc->unplug = spapr_machine_device_unplug;
> > +
> >      smc->dr_phb_enabled = false;
> >      smc->dr_cpu_enabled = false;
> >      smc->dr_lmb_enabled = false;
> > diff --git a/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h b/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h
> > index 12045a1..0c1be07 100644
> > --- a/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h
> > +++ b/linux-headers/linux/kvm.h
> > @@ -761,6 +761,7 @@ struct kvm_ppc_smmu_info {
> >  #define KVM_CAP_PPC_FIXUP_HCALL 103
> >  #define KVM_CAP_PPC_ENABLE_HCALL 104
> >  #define KVM_CAP_CHECK_EXTENSION_VM 105
> > +#define KVM_CAP_SPAPR_REUSE_VCPU 107
> 
> Updates to linux-headers/ are usually put into their own patch for
> safety (along with an indication of what kernel commit the additions
> came from).
> 
> >  #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
> >  
> > diff --git a/target-ppc/kvm.c b/target-ppc/kvm.c
> > index 1edf2b5..ee23bf6 100644
> > --- a/target-ppc/kvm.c
> > +++ b/target-ppc/kvm.c
> > @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ static int cap_ppc_watchdog;
> >  static int cap_papr;
> >  static int cap_htab_fd;
> >  static int cap_fixup_hcalls;
> > +static int cap_spapr_reuse_vcpu;
> 
> AFAICT nothing in this patch checks this variable.  Does it belong in
> this patch?

This is some remnant of an old approach I was trying. It got left out
by mistake and sorry that you had to review this part.

I will clean this up in the next post.

Regards,
Bharata.