qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 16/19] target/riscv/cpu.c: create KVM mock properties


From: Daniel Henrique Barboza
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 16/19] target/riscv/cpu.c: create KVM mock properties
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2023 11:28:03 -0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0



On 6/23/23 06:58, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:56:57AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
KVM-specific properties are being created inside target/riscv/kvm.c. But
at this moment we're gathering all the remaining properties from TCG and
adding them as is when running KVM. This creates a situation where
non-KVM properties are setting flags to 'true' due to its default
settings (e.g.  Zawrs). Users can also freely enable them via command
line.

This doesn't impact runtime per se because KVM doesn't care about these
flags, but code such as riscv_isa_string_ext() take those flags into
account. The result is that, for a KVM guest, setting non-KVM properties
will make them appear in the riscv,isa DT.

We want to keep the same API for both TCG and KVM and at the same time,
when running KVM, forbid non-KVM extensions to be enabled internally. We
accomplish both by changing riscv_cpu_add_user_properties() to add a
mock/no-op boolean property for every non-KVM extension in
riscv_cpu_extensions[]. Then, when running KVM, users are still free to
set extensions at will, we'll treat non-KVM extensions as a no-op, and
riscv_isa_string_ext() will not report bogus extensions in the DT.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <dbarboza@ventanamicro.com>
---
  target/riscv/cpu.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.c b/target/riscv/cpu.c
index b65db165cc..f5209f0789 100644
--- a/target/riscv/cpu.c
+++ b/target/riscv/cpu.c
@@ -1720,6 +1720,18 @@ static Property riscv_cpu_extensions[] = {
      DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(),
  };
+
+static void cpu_set_cfg_noop(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
+                             const char *name,
+                             void *opaque, Error **errp)
+{
+    bool value;
+
+    if (!visit_type_bool(v, name, &value, errp)) {
+        return;
+    }
+}
+
  /*
   * Add CPU properties with user-facing flags.
   *
@@ -1738,9 +1750,27 @@ static void riscv_cpu_add_user_properties(Object *obj)
      riscv_cpu_add_misa_properties(obj);
for (prop = riscv_cpu_extensions; prop && prop->name; prop++) {
-        /* Check if KVM didn't create the property already */
-        if (object_property_find(obj, prop->name)) {
-            continue;
+        if (riscv_running_kvm()) {
+            /* Check if KVM didn't create the property already */
+            if (object_property_find(obj, prop->name)) {
+                continue;
+            }
+
+            /*
+             * Set every multi-letter extension that KVM doesn't
+             * know as a no-op. This will allow users to set values
+             * to them while keeping their internal state to 'false'.
+             *
+             * We're giving a pass for non-bool properties since they're
+             * not related to the availability of extensions and can be
+             * safely ignored as is.
+             */
+            if (prop->info == &qdev_prop_bool) {
+                object_property_add(obj, prop->name, "bool",
+                                    NULL, cpu_set_cfg_noop,
+                                    NULL, NULL);
+                continue;
+            }
          }
qdev_property_add_static(dev, prop);
--
2.41.0


I think we should actually fail with an error when the user tries to
enable an extension KVM doesn't support. Otherwise a user may be
confused as to why their Zawrs=on didn't provide them a machine with
Zawrs. And, when KVM learns how to provide that support to guests
(Zawrs is actually on my TODO...), then migrating the same VM to
later KVM/QEMU will actually enable the feature, possibly confusing
the guest.

So, we should probably just not add any extension properties to KVM
guests which can't be enabled. Then, as we add support to KVM, we'll
add the properties too.

By 'extension properties' do you mean just the flags that enable/disable them,
like '-cpu, rawrs=<bool>', or also the other properties related to extensions
that KVM might not support, like 'vlen' and 'elen' from RVV? I'd say that it's
ok to leave things such as 'vlen' because the user won't be able to enable RVV
in KVM anyways.

And what error do we want to throw? With this patch it's easy to just add an
Extension zawrs is not available using KVM" error message. Otherwise we can
not add the property at all and then QEMU will fail with a "property cpu.X not
found" type of error. Both will error out, question is whether we want to be
more informative about it.

Thanks,


Daniel



Thanks,
drew



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]