Re: [Qemu-ppc] [kvm-devel] [PATCH v2] kvm-ppc: halt secondary cpus when guest reset

[Jan Kiszka]

On 2012-01-10 18:43, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/10/2012 03:38 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-01-10 00:17, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On 01/09/2012 04:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09.01.2012, at 22:23, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>>> Alex, is there a better way to deal with the IRQ chip issue?
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I'm not sure what the issue really is.
>>>
>>> If irqchip is enabled, env->halted won't result in a CPU being
>>> considered idle -- since QEMU won't see the interrupt that wakes the
>>> vcpu, and the idling is handled in the kernel.  In this case we're
>>> waiting for MMIO rather than an interrupt, and it's the kernel that
>>> doesn't know what's going on.
>>>
>>> It seems wrong to use env->stopped, though, as a spin-table release
>>> should not override a user's explicit request to stop a CPU.  It might
>>> be OK (though a bit ugly) if the only usage of env->stopped is through
>>> pause_all_vcpus(), and the boot thread is the first one to be kicked
>>> (though in theory the boot cpu could wake another cpu, and that could
>>> wake a cpu that comes before it, causing a race with pause_all_vcpus()).
>>>
>>> If it is OK to use env->stopped, is there any reason not to always use
>>> it (versus just with irqchip)?
>>
>> Why don't you wait in the kernel with in-kernel irqchip under all
>> condition (except pausing VCPUs, of course) on PPC? Just like x86 does.
> 
> We do for normal idling.  This is a bit different, in that we're not
> waiting for an interrupt, but for an MMIO that releases the cpu at
> boot-time.

Where is the state stored that declares a VCPU to wait for that event?
Where is it set, where removed?

What about implementing MP_STATE on PPC, at least those states that make
sense? Don't you need that anyway for normal HALT<->RUNNABLE transitions?

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux