On 2012-04-20 17:36, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-04-20 17:00, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> On 2012-04-19 22:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>>>> Jan/Avi: ping?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to get this ABI detail clarified so it can be implemented
>>>>> the right way on Qemu and KVM.
>>>>>
>>>>> My proposal is to simply add tsc-deadline to the data returned by
>>>>> GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, making KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, there were problems with this model to exclude that the feature
>>>> gets reported this way without ensuring that in-kernel irqchip is
>>>> actually activated. Please browse the discussions, it should be
>>>> documented there.
>>>
>>> The flag was never added to GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID on any of the git
>>> repositories I have checked, and I don't see that being done anywhere on
>>> my KVM mailing list archives, either. So I don't see how we could have
>>> had issues with GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID, if it was never present on the
>>> code.
>>>
>>> What was present on the code before the fix, was coded that
>>> unconditinally enabled the flag even if Qemu never asked for it, and
>>> that really was wrong.
>>>
>>> GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID doesn't enable any flag: it just tells userspace
>>> that the hardware and KVM supports the feature (and, surprise, this is
>>> exactly what KVM_CAP_TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER means too, isn't it?). It's up
>>> to userspace to enable the CPUID bits according to user requirements and
>>> userspace capabilities (in other words: only when userspace knows it is
>>> safe because the in-kernel irqchip is enabled).
>>>
>>> If the above is not what GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID means, I would like to get
>>> that clarified, so I can submit an updated to KVM API documentation.
>>
>> Does old userspace filter out flags from GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID that it
>> does not understand?
> 
> It's even more strict than that: it only enables what was explicitly
> enabled on the CPU model asked by the user.
> 
> But:
> 
> The only exception is "-cpu host", that tries to enable everything, even
> flags Qemu never heard of, and that is something that may require some
> changes on the API design (or at least documentation clarifications).
> 
> Today "-cpu host" can't differentiate (A) "a feature that KVM supports
> and emulate by itself and can be enabled without any support from
> userspace" and (B) "a feature that KVM supports but need support from
> userspace to be enabled". I am sure we will be able to find multiple
> examples of (B) inside the flags returned by GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID today.

The problem remains that exposing TSC_DEADLINE via SUPPORTED_CPUID is
wrong in case userspace doesn't select the in-kernel APIC. The kernel
does _nothing_ about emulating the flag if userspace provides the APIC,
so it must not expose this feature. Even if this had no practical impact
(but it has: old qemu[-kvm] + userspace APIC + -cpu host), it would
still be semantically broken.

> 
> We could decide to never add any new flag to GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID if it
> requires additional userspace support to work, from now on, and create
> new KVM_CAP_* flags for them. But, we really want to do that for almost
> every new CPUID feature bit in the future?

Most CPU features do not depend on our in-kernel irqchips. But if there
is something to simplify in retrieving information about such
"conditional features", let's do it.

> 
> We also have the problem of defining what "requires support from
> userspace to work" means: I am not sure this has the same meaning for
> everybody. Many new features require userspace support only for
> migration, and nothing else, but some users don't need migration to
> work. Do those features qualify as (A), or as (B)?

"Works for most user" also means "breaks for some". And that is a bug,
isn't it?

Jan