Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH] spapr: Add ibm, processor-storage-keys property to CPU DT node

[David Gibson]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:15:01PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:02:43PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:54:48PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 05:00:36PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > > LoPAPR says:
> > > > 
> > > >     “ibm,processor-storage-keys”
> > > > 
> > > >     property name indicating the number of virtual storage keys 
> > > > supported
> > > >     by the processor described by this node.
> > > > 
> > > >     prop-encoded-array: Consists of two cells encoded as with 
> > > > encode-int.
> > > >     The first cell represents the number of virtual storage keys 
> > > > supported
> > > >     for data accesses while the second cell represents the number of
> > > >     virtual storage keys supported for instruction accesses. The cell 
> > > > value
> > > >     of zero indicates that no storage keys are supported for the access
> > > >     type.
> > > > 
> > > > pHyp provides the property above but there's a bug in P8 firmware where 
> > > > the
> > > > second cell is zero even though POWER8 supports instruction access keys.
> > > > This bug will be fixed for P9.
> > > > 
> > > > Tested with KVM on POWER8 Firenze machine and with TCG on x86_64 
> > > > machine.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <address@hidden>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > The sysfs files are provided by this patch for Linux:
> > > 
> > > Those sysfs files relate to the kernel's support for userspace
> > > processes using storage keys.  That is quite distinct from KVM's
> > > support for guests using storage keys, so I think that using those
> > > sysfs files to indicate what the guest can do is wrong.
> > 
> > Ah!  Glad someone pointed that out.
> > 
> > > In fact KVM allows guests to specify storage keys in the HPTE values
> > > that they set, except that there is a bug (for which Ram Pai has
> > > posted a patch) that means that KVM loses the top two bits of the key
> > > number.
> > > 
> > > What I would suggest is that we use the 'pad' field in the struct
> > > kvm_ppc_smmu_info to report the number of keys supported by KVM for
> > > guest use.
> > 
> > Is there a particular reason to put it there rather than a new KVM 
> > capability?
> 
> Just that storage keys are an aspect of the "server" (i.e. HPT) MMU,
> so it seemed to make sense to put it together with the other
> information about the HPT MMU (segment sizes, page sizes, etc.).

Ok, works for me.

> 
> > > That will be 0 in all current kernels, indicating that
> > > keys are not supported, which is reasonable because of the bug.  I
> > > will make sure the patch fixing the bug goes in first.
> > 
> > Note that the same migration concerns still apply, so we'll still want
> > machine properties to control this in qemu, which are validated
> > against what the host can do.  Since current kernels are buggy, I
> > suggest we have these properties default to 0 - i.e. you need to
> > explicitly request storage keys on the command line if you want your
> > guest to use them.  Once fixed kernels are rolled out we can look at
> > changing that in a future machine type.
> > 
> > > We could either have two u16 fields for the number of keys for data
> > > and instruction, or we could have a u32 field for the number of keys
> > > and a separate bit in the flags field to indicate that instruction
> > > keys are supported.  Which would be preferable?
> > 
> > I'd prefer the separate numbers for I and D.  It's more flexible and
> > no harder to implement AFAICT.
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> Paul.
> 

-- 
David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                                | _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature