Re: KVM/arm64: Guest ABI changes do not appear rollback-safe

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

 



Hi Marc,

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 1:46 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > KVM currently restricts the vcpu features to be unified across vcpus,
> > > but that's only an implementation choice.
> >
> > But that implementation choice has become ABI, no? How could support
> > for asymmetry be added without requiring userspace opt-in or breaking
> > existing VMMs that depend on feature unification?
>
> Of course, you'd need some sort of advertising of this new behaviour.
>
> One thing I would like to add to the current state of thing is an
> indication of whether the effects of a sysreg being written from
> userspace are global or local to a vcpu. You'd need a new capability,
> and an extra flag added to the encoding of each register.

Ah. I think that is a much more reasonable fit then. VMMs unaware of
this can continue to migrate new bits (albeit at the cost of
potentially higher lock contention for the per-VM stuff), and those
that do can reap the benefits of writing such attributes exactly once.

[...]

> > > A device means yet another configuration and migration API. Don't you
> > > think we have enough of those? The complexity of KVM/arm64 userspace
> > > API is already insane, and extremely fragile. Adding to it will be a
> > > validation nightmare (it already is, and I don't see anyone actively
> > > helping with it).
> >
> > It seems equally fragile to introduce VM-wide serialization to vCPU
> > UAPI that we know is in the live migration critical path for _any_
> > VMM. Without requiring userspace changes for all the new widgets under
> > discussion we're effectively forcing VMMs to do something suboptimal.
>
> I'm perfectly happy with suboptimal to start with, and find ways to
> make it better once we have a clear path forward. I just don't want to
> conflate the two.

Fair. My initial concern was that it didn't seem as though there was
much room for growth/improvement with the one reg UAPI, but your
suggestion definitely provides a ramp out to handle VM state once per
VM.

Thanks for following up :)

--
Oliver
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm



[Index of Archives]     [Linux KVM]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux