Excerpts from Fabiano Rosas's message of January 19, 2021 11:46 am:
> Resending because the previous got spam-filtered:
>
> Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> This reverts much of commit c01015091a770 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Run HPT
>> guests on POWER9 radix hosts"), which was required to run HPT guests on
>> RPT hosts on early POWER9 CPUs without support for "mixed mode", which
>> meant the host could not run with MMU on while guests were running.
>>
>> This code has some corner case bugs, e.g., when the guest hits a machine
>> check or HMI the primary locks up waiting for secondaries to switch LPCR
>> to host, which they never do. This could all be fixed in software, but
>> most CPUs in production have mixed mode support, and those that don't
>> are believed to be all in installations that don't use this capability.
>> So simplify things and remove support.
>
> With this patch in a DD2.1 machine + indep_threads_mode=N +
> disable_radix, QEMU aborts and dumps registers, is that intended?
Yes. That configuration is hanging handling MCEs in the guest with some
threads waiting forever to synchronize. Paul suggested it was never a
supported configuration so we might just remove it.
> Could we use the 'no_mixing_hpt_and_radix' logic in check_extension to
> advertise only KVM_CAP_PPC_MMU_RADIX to the guest via OV5 so it doesn't
> try to run hash?
>
> For instance, if I hack QEMU's 'spapr_dt_ov5_platform_support' from
> OV5_MMU_BOTH to OV5_MMU_RADIX_300 then it boots succesfuly, but the
> guest turns into radix, due to this code in prom_init:
>
> prom_parse_mmu_model:
>
> case OV5_FEAT(OV5_MMU_RADIX): /* Only Radix */
> prom_debug("MMU - radix only\n");
> if (prom_radix_disable) {
> /*
> * If we __have__ to do radix, we're better off ignoring
> * the command line rather than not booting.
> */
> prom_printf("WARNING: Ignoring cmdline option disable_radix\n");
> }
> support->radix_mmu = true;
> break;
>
> It seems we could explicitly say that the host does not support hash and
> that would align with the above code.
I'm not sure, sounds like you could, on the other hand these aborts seem
like the prefered failure mode for these kinds of configuration issues,
I don't know what the policy is, is reverting back to radix acceptable?
Thanks,
Nick
