Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 6/8] spapr: move interrupt allocator to xics

[Alexander Graf]

On 11.04.14 18:01, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 04/12/2014 01:38 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > On 11.04.14 17:27, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > On 04/12/2014 12:58 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > > > On 11.04.14 16:50, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > > > On 04/11/2014 11:58 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > > > > > On 11.04.2014, at 14:38, Alexey Kardashevskiy <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 04/11/2014 07:24 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 10.04.14 16:43, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 04/10/2014 11:26 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 10.04.14 15:24, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 04/10/2014 10:51 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 14.03.14 05:18, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The current allocator returns IRQ numbers from a pool and does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > support IRQs reuse in any form as it did not keep track of what it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > previously returned, it only had the last returned IRQ.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > However migration may change interrupts for devices depending on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > their order in the command line.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wtf? Nonono, this sounds very bogus and wrong. Migration shouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > anything.
> > > > > > > > > > > I put wrong commit message. By change I meant that the default state
> > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > the destination guest started accepting migration is different from
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > the destination guest became after migration finished. And migration
> > > > > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > > > avoid changing this default state.
> > > > > > > > > > Ok, why is the IRQ configuration different?
> > > > > > > > > Because QEMU creates devices in the order as in the command line, and
> > > > > > > > > libvirt changes this order - the XML used to create the guest and the
> > > > > > > > > XML
> > > > > > > > > which is sends during migration are different. libvirt thinks it is ok
> > > > > > > > > while it keeps @reg property for (for example) spapr-vscsi devices
> > > > > > > > > but it
> > > > > > > > > is not because since the order is different, devices call IRQ
> > > > > > > > > allocator in
> > > > > > > > > different order and get different IRQs.
> > > > > > > > So your patch migrates the current IRQ configuration, but once you
> > > > > > > > restart
> > > > > > > > the virtual machine on the destination host it will have different IRQ
> > > > > > > > numbering again, right?
> > > > > > > No, why? IRQs are assigned at init time from realize() callbacks (and
> > > > > > > survive reset) or as a part of ibm,change-msi rtas call which happens in
> > > > > > > the same order as it only depends on pci addresses and we do not change
> > > > > > > this either.
> > > > > > Ok, let me rephrase. If I shut the machine down because I'm doing
> > > > > > on-disk hibernate and then boot it back up, will the guest find the same
> > > > > > configuration?
> > > > > I do not understand what you mean by this. Hibernation by the guest OS
> > > > > itself or by QEMU? If this involves QEMU exit and QEMU start - then yes,
> > > > by the guest OS. The host will only see a genuine "shutdown" event. The
> > > > guest OS will expect the machine to look *the exact same* as before the
> > > > shutdown.
> > > Ok. So. I have to implement "irq" property everywhere (PHB is missing
> > > INTA/B/C/D now) and check if they did not change during migration via those
> > Hrm. Not sure. Maybe it'd make sense to join next week's call on platform
> > device creation. The problem seems pretty closely related.
> What are those platform devices and what are you going to discuss exactly?

Devices that don't have a unified interrupt routing scheme like PCI 
where you just link lines A/B/C/D to your controller and you're good to go.

> > > VMSTATE.*EQUAL. Correct?
> > Why would you need this? I think we already said a couple dozen times that
> > configuration matching is a bigger problem, no?
> For debug! It is not needed in general, yes.
>
>
> > > If so (more or less), I still would like to keep patches 1..7.
> > > In fact, the first one is independent and we need it anyway.
> > > Yes/no?
> > Why?
> IOMMUs do not migrate correctly - they only have a class have and
> instance_id and this instance_it depends on command line arguments order.
> The #1 patch makes it classname + liobn.

Why do we need a bus for that?

> > > > > config may be different. If it is "migrate to file" and then "migrate from
> > > > > file" (do not know what you call it when migration goes to a pipe which is
> > > > > "tar") - then config will be the same.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure that's a good solution to the problem. I guess we should
> > > > > > > > rather aim to make sure that we can make IRQ allocation explicit.
> > > > > > > > Fundamentally the problem sounds very similar to the PCI slot
> > > > > > > > allocation
> > > > > > > > which eventually got solved by libvirt specifying the slots manually.
> > > > > > > We can do that too. Who decides? :)
> > > > > > The better solution wins :)
> > > > > We both know who decides ;) I posted series, I need heads up if it is
> > > > > going
> > > > > the right way or not.
> > > > It's not :). If a guest may not have different IRQ allocation after
> > > > migration, it also must not have different IRQ allocation after shutdown +
> > > > restart.
> > > Ok. That's good answer, thanks. How does x86 work then? IRQs are hardcoded
> > > (some are for sure but I do not know about MSI)? Or in order to support
> > Non-PCI IRQs are hardcoded, yes. PCI IRQs are mapped to one of the 4 PCI
> > interrupts which again are hardcoded to IOAPIC interrupt lines after some
> > PCI line swizzling.
> This is what I meant - I need to have a way to tell PHB IRQ numbers for
> INTA/B/C/D.

Yes, just like platform devices ;).


Alex