Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] x86/domctl: Add XEN_DOMCTL_set_avail_vcpus

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>]

On 11/22/2016 11:25 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
>
> On 11/22/2016 11:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 22.11.16 at 16:43, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 11/22/2016 10:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22.11.16 at 15:37, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/22/2016 08:59 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22.11.16 at 13:34, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/22/2016 05:39 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22.11.16 at 11:31, <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21.11.16 at 22:00, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This domctl is called when a VCPU is hot-(un)plugged to a
>>>>>>>>>> guest (via
>>>>>>>>>> 'xl vcpu-set').
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The primary reason for adding this call is because for PVH guests
>>>>>>>>>> the hypervisor needs to send an SCI and set GPE registers.
>>>>>>>>>> This is
>>>>>>>>>> unlike HVM guests that have qemu to perform these tasks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the tool stack can't do this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the avoidance of further misunderstandings: Of course likely
>>>>>>>> not completely on its own, but by using a (to be introduced) more
>>>>>>>> low level hypervisor interface (setting arbitrary GPE bits, with
>>>>>>>> SCI
>>>>>>>> raised as needed, or the SCI raising being another hypercall).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are suggesting breaking up XEN_DOMCTL_set_avail_vcpus into
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> XEN_DOMCTL_set_acpi_reg(io_offset, length, val)
>>>>>>> XEN_DOMCTL_set_avail_vcpus(avail_vcpus_bitmap)
>>>>>>> XEN_DOMCTL_send_virq(virq)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (with perhaps set_avail_vcpus folded into set_acpi_reg) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I don't see what set_avail_vcpus would be good for
>>>>>> considering that during v2 review you've said that you need it
>>>>>> just for the GPE modification and SCI sending.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone needs to provide the hypervisor with the new number of
>>>>> available
>>>>> (i.e. hot-plugged/unplugged) VCPUs, thus the name of the domctl.
>>>>> GPE/SCI
>>>>> manipulation are part of that update.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I didn't say it during v2 review and I should have)
>>>>
>>>> And I've just found that need while looking over patch 8. With
>>>> that I'm not sure the splitting would make sense, albeit we may
>>>> find it necessary to fiddle with other GPE bits down the road.
>>>
>>> Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing:
>>> XEN_DOMCTL_set_acpi_reg is sufficient for both GPE and CPU map (or any
>>> ACPI register should the need arise)
>>
>> Well, my point is that as long as we continue to need
>> set_avail_vcpus (which I hear you say we do need), I'm not
>> sure the splitting would be helpful (minus the "albeit" part
>> above).
>
>
> So the downside of having set_avail is that if we ever find this need to
> touch ACPI registers we will be left with a useless (or at least
> redundant) domctl.
>
> Let me try to have set_acpi_reg and see if it looks good enough. If
> people don't like it then I'll go back to set_avail_vcpus.

(apparently I replied to Jan only. Resending to everyone)

I have a prototype that replaces XEN_DOMCTL_set_avail_vcpus with 
XEN_DOMCTL_acpi_access and it seems to work OK. The toolstack needs to 
perform two (or more, if >32 VCPUs) hypercalls and the logic on the 
hypervisor side is almost the same as the ioreq handling that this 
series added in patch 8.

However, I now realized that this interface will not be available to PV 
guests (and it will only become available to HVM guests when we move 
hotplug from qemu to hypervisor). And it's x86-specific.

This means that PV guests will not know what the number of available 
VCPUs is and therefore we will not be able to enforce it. OTOH we don't 
know how to do that anyway since PV guests bring up all VCPUs and then 
offline them.

-boris

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel