RE: [PATCH RFC V2 04/37] arm/virt,target/arm: Machine init time change common to vCPU {cold|hot}-plug

[Salil Mehta]

Hi Gavin,

> From: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 7:29 AM
> To: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; qemu-
> arm@nongnu.org
> Cc: maz@kernel.org; jean-philippe@linaro.org; Jonathan Cameron
> <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>; lpieralisi@kernel.org;
> peter.maydell@linaro.org; richard.henderson@linaro.org;
> imammedo@redhat.com; andrew.jones@linux.dev; david@redhat.com;
> philmd@linaro.org; eric.auger@redhat.com; will@kernel.org; ardb@kernel.org;
> oliver.upton@linux.dev; pbonzini@redhat.com; mst@redhat.com;
> rafael@kernel.org; borntraeger@linux.ibm.com; alex.bennee@linaro.org;
> linux@armlinux.org.uk; darren@os.amperecomputing.com;
> ilkka@os.amperecomputing.com; vishnu@os.amperecomputing.com;
> karl.heubaum@oracle.com; miguel.luis@oracle.com; salil.mehta@opnsrc.net;
> zhukeqian <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>; wangxiongfeng (C)
> <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>; wangyanan (Y) <wangyanan55@huawei.com>;
> jiakernel2@gmail.com; maobibo@loongson.cn; lixianglai@loongson.cn
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 04/37] arm/virt,target/arm: Machine init time
> change common to vCPU {cold|hot}-plug
> 
> Hi Salil,
> 
> On 9/26/23 20:04, Salil Mehta wrote:
> > Refactor and introduce the common logic required during the
> initialization of
> > both cold and hot plugged vCPUs. Also initialize the *disabled* state of the
> > vCPUs which shall be used further during init phases of various other 
> > components
> > like GIC, PMU, ACPI etc as part of the virt machine initialization.
> >
> > KVM vCPUs corresponding to unplugged/yet-to-be-plugged QOM CPUs are kept in
> > powered-off state in the KVM Host and do not run the guest code. Plugged 
> > vCPUs
> > are also kept in powered-off state but vCPU threads exist and is kept 
> > sleeping.
> >
> > TBD:
> > For the cold booted vCPUs, this change also exists in the arm_load_kernel()
> > in boot.c but for the hotplugged CPUs this change should still remain part 
> > of
> > the pre-plug phase. We are duplicating the powering-off of the cold booted 
> > CPUs.
> > Shall we remove the duplicate change from boot.c?
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com>
> > Co-developed-by: Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@huawei.com>
> > Reported-by: Gavin Shan <gavin.shan@redhat.com>
> > [GS: pointed the assertion due to wrong range check]
> > Signed-off-by: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >   hw/arm/virt.c      | 149 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >   target/arm/cpu.c   |   7 +++
> >   target/arm/cpu64.c |  14 +++++
> >   3 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
> > index 0eb6bf5a18..3668ad27ec 100644
> > --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
> > +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
> > @@ -221,6 +221,7 @@ static const char *valid_cpus[] = {
> >       ARM_CPU_TYPE_NAME("max"),
> >   };
> >
> > +static CPUArchId *virt_find_cpu_slot(MachineState *ms, int vcpuid);
> >   static int virt_get_socket_id(const MachineState *ms, int cpu_index);
> >   static int virt_get_cluster_id(const MachineState *ms, int cpu_index);
> >   static int virt_get_core_id(const MachineState *ms, int cpu_index);
> > @@ -2154,6 +2155,14 @@ static void machvirt_init(MachineState *machine)
> >           exit(1);
> >       }
> >
> > +    finalize_gic_version(vms);
> > +    if (tcg_enabled() || hvf_enabled() || qtest_enabled() ||
> > +        (vms->gic_version < VIRT_GIC_VERSION_3)) {
> > +        machine->smp.max_cpus = smp_cpus;
> > +        mc->has_hotpluggable_cpus = false;
> > +        warn_report("cpu hotplug feature has been disabled");
> > +    }
> > +
> 
> Comments needed here to explain why @mc->has_hotpluggable_cpus is set to 
> false.
> I guess it's something related to TODO list, mentioned in the cover letter.


I can put a comment explaining the checks as to why feature has been disabled.
BTW, isn't code self-explanatory here?


[...]

> > +static CPUArchId *virt_find_cpu_slot(MachineState *ms, int vcpuid)
> > +{
> > +    VirtMachineState *vms = VIRT_MACHINE(ms);
> > +    CPUArchId *found_cpu;
> > +    uint64_t mp_affinity;
> > +
> > +    assert(vcpuid >= 0 && vcpuid < ms->possible_cpus->len);
> > +
> > +    /*
> > +     * RFC: Question:
> > +     * TBD: Should mp-affinity be treated as MPIDR?
> > +     */
> > +    mp_affinity = virt_cpu_mp_affinity(vms, vcpuid);
> > +    found_cpu = &ms->possible_cpus->cpus[vcpuid];
> > +
> > +    assert(found_cpu->arch_id == mp_affinity);
> > +
> > +    /*
> > +     * RFC: Question:
> > +     * Slot-id is the index where vCPU with certain 
> > arch-id(=mpidr/ap-affinity)
> > +     * is plugged. For Host KVM, MPIDR for vCPU is derived using vcpu-id.
> > +     * As I understand, MPIDR and vcpu-id are property of vCPU but slot-id 
> > is
> > +     * more related to machine? Current code assumes slot-id and vcpu-id 
> > are
> > +     * same i.e. meaning of slot is bit vague.
> > +     *
> > +     * Q1: Is there any requirement to clearly represent slot and 
> > dissociate it
> > +     *     from vcpu-id?
> > +     * Q2: Should we make MPIDR within host KVM user configurable?
> > +     *
> > +     *          +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
> > +     * MPIDR    |||  Res  |   Aff2  |   Aff1  |  Aff0   |
> > +     *          +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
> > +     *                     \         \         \   |    |
> > +     *                      \   8bit  \   8bit  \  |4bit|
> > +     *                       \<------->\<------->\ |<-->|
> > +     *                        \         \         \|    |
> > +     *          +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
> > +     * VCPU-ID  |  Byte4  |  Byte2  |  Byte1  |  Byte0  |
> > +     *          +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
> > +     */
> > +
> > +    return found_cpu;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> MPIDR[31] is set to 0b1, looking at
> linux/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c::reset_mpidr().
> 
> I think this function can be renamed to virt_get_cpu_slot(ms, index), better 
> to
> reflect its intention. I had same concerns why cs->cpu_index can't be
> reused as MPIDR, but it's out of scope for this series. It maybe something to 
> be
> improved afterwards.

Yes, right now it is linear mapping but this might change. I would suggest to 
keep
it like this with a comment so that it can be addressed in future.

User configurability of the MPIDR is not in the scope of this patch. Agreed.


[...]

> > +static void virt_cpu_pre_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, DeviceState
> *dev,
> > +                              Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +    VirtMachineState *vms = VIRT_MACHINE(hotplug_dev);
> > +    MachineState *ms = MACHINE(hotplug_dev);
> > +    ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(dev);
> > +    CPUState *cs = CPU(dev);
> > +    CPUArchId *cpu_slot;
> > +    int32_t min_cpuid = 0;
> > +    int32_t max_cpuid;
> > +
> > +    /* sanity check the cpu */
> > +    if (!object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(cpu), ms->cpu_type)) {
> > +        error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type, expected cpu type: '%s'",
> > +                   ms->cpu_type);
> > +        return;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    if ((cpu->thread_id < 0) || (cpu->thread_id >= ms->smp.threads)) {
> > +        error_setg(errp, "Invalid thread-id %u specified, correct range
> 0:%u",
> > +                   cpu->thread_id, ms->smp.threads - 1);
> > +        return;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    max_cpuid = ms->possible_cpus->len - 1;
> > +    if (!dev->hotplugged) {
> > +        min_cpuid = vms->acpi_dev ? ms->smp.cpus : 0;
> > +        max_cpuid = vms->acpi_dev ? max_cpuid : ms->smp.cpus - 1;
> > +    }
> > +
> 
> I don't understand how the range is figured out. cpu->core_id should
> be in range [0, ms->smp.cores).
> With your code, the following scenario
> becomes invalid incorrectly?
> 
> -cpu host -smp maxcpus=4,cpus=1,sockets=4,clusters=1,cores=1,threads=1

Ghosh. I am not sure what I was thinking while I added this.

Whatever maybe your circumstances never drink and code. Deadly
combination! (Repeat offender)

Will correct this.

Thanks
Salil.


[...]

> > +
> > +static void virt_cpu_plug(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, DeviceState *dev,
> > +                          Error **errp)
> > +{
> > +    MachineState *ms = MACHINE(hotplug_dev);
> > +    CPUState *cs = CPU(dev);
> > +    CPUArchId *cpu_slot;
> > +
> > +    /* insert the cold/hot-plugged vcpu in the slot */
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> May be:
> 
>         /* CPU becomes present */


Not exactly. In this leg CPU is being plugged by user action or during
init time. After plugging action is complete, a CPU eventually becomes
present.


> 
> > +    cpu_slot = virt_find_cpu_slot(ms, cs->cpu_index);
> > +    cpu_slot->cpu = OBJECT(dev);
> > +
> > +    cs->disabled = false;
> > +    return;
>         ^^^^^^
> 
>         not needed.

Agreed.

> 
> May be worthy some comments like below, correlating to what's done in
> aarch64_cpu_initfn():
> 
>         /* CPU becomes enabled after it's hot added */


I can add a line over the initialization, if thats what you mean?


> 
> > +}
> > +
> >   static void virt_machine_device_pre_plug_cb(HotplugHandler
> *hotplug_dev,
> >                                               DeviceState *dev, Error
> **errp)

[...]

> > +static void aarch64_cpu_initfn(Object *obj)
> > +{
> > +    CPUState *cs = CPU(obj);
> > +
> > +    /*
> > +     * we start every ARM64 vcpu as disabled possible vCPU. It needs to
> be
> > +     * enabled explicitly
> > +     */
> > +    cs->disabled = true;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> The comments can be simplified to:
> 
>      /* The CPU state isn't enabled until it's hot added completely */


There is a reason why I have added comment that way because for
other architectures 'disabled' would be false by default.


> >   static void aarch64_cpu_finalizefn(Object *obj)
> >   {
> >   }
> > @@ -751,7 +762,9 @@ static gchar *aarch64_gdb_arch_name(CPUState *cs)
> >   static void aarch64_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
> >   {
> >       CPUClass *cc = CPU_CLASS(oc);
> > +    DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_CLASS(oc);
> >
> > +    dc->user_creatable = true;
> >       cc->gdb_read_register = aarch64_cpu_gdb_read_register;
> >       cc->gdb_write_register = aarch64_cpu_gdb_write_register;
> >       cc->gdb_num_core_regs = 34;
> > @@ -800,6 +813,7 @@ static const TypeInfo aarch64_cpu_type_info = {
> >       .name = TYPE_AARCH64_CPU,
> >       .parent = TYPE_ARM_CPU,
> >       .instance_size = sizeof(ARMCPU),
> > +    .instance_init = aarch64_cpu_initfn,
> >       .instance_finalize = aarch64_cpu_finalizefn,
> >       .abstract = true,
> >       .class_size = sizeof(AArch64CPUClass),
> 
> I'm not sure if 'dc->user_creatable' can be set true here because
> the ARMCPU objects aren't ready for hot added/removed at this point.
> The hacks for GICv3 aren't included so far. I think a separate patch
> may be needed in the last to enable the functionality?

This patch contains common init time changes for CPU {hot,cold} plug.


Thanks
Salil.