On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 08:49:24AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 19.12.2016 01:48, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 01:44:57PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> On 15.12.2016 06:53, David Gibson wrote:
> >>> The KVM_PPC_ALLOCATE_HTAB ioctl() is used to set the size of hashed page
> >>> table (HPT) that userspace expects a guest VM to have, and is also used to
> >>> clear that HPT when necessary (e.g. guest reboot).
> >>>
> >>> At present, once the ioctl() is called for the first time, the HPT size can
> >>> never be changed thereafter - it will be cleared but always sized as from
> >>> the first call.
> >>>
> >>> With upcoming HPT resize implementation, we're going to need to allow
> >>> userspace to resize the HPT at reset (to change it back to the default size
> >>> if the guest changed it).
> >>>
> >>> So, we need to allow this ioctl() to change the HPT size.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> [...]
> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c
> >>> index 68bb228..8e5ac2f 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c
> >>> @@ -104,10 +104,22 @@ void kvmppc_set_hpt(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_hpt_info *info)
> >>> info->virt, (long)info->order, kvm->arch.lpid);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -long kvmppc_alloc_reset_hpt(struct kvm *kvm, u32 *htab_orderp)
> >>> +void kvmppc_free_hpt(struct kvm_hpt_info *info)
> >>> +{
> >>> + vfree(info->rev);
> >>> + if (info->cma)
> >>> + kvm_free_hpt_cma(virt_to_page(info->virt),
> >>> + 1 << (info->order - PAGE_SHIFT));
> >>> + else
> >>> + free_pages(info->virt, info->order - PAGE_SHIFT);
> >>> + info->virt = 0;
> >>> + info->order = 0;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> Why do you need to move kvmppc_free_hpt() around? Seems like unecessary
> >> code churn to me?
> >
> > Previously, kvmppc_free_hpt() wasn't needed in
> > kvmppc_alloc_reset_hpt(), now it is. So we need to move it above that
> > function. I could move it in the previous patch, but that would
> > obscure what the actual changes are to it, so it seemed better to do
> > it here.
>
> kvmppc_free_hpt() is not a static function, there is a prototype in a
> header for this somewhere, so as far as I can see, it should also work
> without moving this function?
Oh yeah.. how did I miss that..
>
> [...]
> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> >>> index 71c5adb..957e473 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> >>> @@ -3600,12 +3600,9 @@ static long kvm_arch_vm_ioctl_hv(struct file *filp,
> >>> r = -EFAULT;
> >>> if (get_user(htab_order, (u32 __user *)argp))
> >>> break;
> >>> - r = kvmppc_alloc_reset_hpt(kvm, &htab_order);
> >>> + r = kvmppc_alloc_reset_hpt(kvm, htab_order);
> >>> if (r)
> >>> break;
> >>> - r = -EFAULT;
> >>> - if (put_user(htab_order, (u32 __user *)argp))
> >>> - break;
> >>
> >> Now that htab_order is not changed anymore by the kernel, I'm pretty
> >> sure you need some checks on the value here before calling
> >> kvmppc_alloc_reset_hpt(), e.g. return an error code if htab_order <
> >> PPC_MIN_HPT_ORDER.
> >
> > Right. I've done that by putting the checks into
> > kvmppc_allocate_hpt() in the earlier patch.
> >
> >> And, I'm not sure if I got that right, but in former times, the
> >> htab_order from the userspace application was just a suggestion, and now
> >> it's mandatory, right? So if an old userspace used a very high value
> >> here (or even something smaller than PPC_MIN_HPT_ORDER like 0), the
> >> kernel fixed this up and the userspace could run happily with the fixed
> >> value afterwards. But since this value from userspace if mandatory now,
> >> such an userspace application is broken now. So maybe it's better to
> >> introduce a new ioctl for this new behavior instead, to avoid breaking
> >> old userspace applications?
> >
> > A long time ago it was just a hint. However, that behaviour was
> > already changed in 572abd5 "KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Don't fall back to
> > smaller HPT size in allocation ioctl". This is important: without
> > that we could get a different HPT size on the two ends of a migration,
> > which broke things nastily.
>
> OK, makes sense, especially if the userspace provided an order. But if I
> get that patch right, it was still possible to call with order == 0 to
> get the automatic sizing?
No, I don't think so. It was possible to pass a NULL htab_orderp to
the allocation functions to get autosizing, but that would only
actually happen when called from kvm run because the explicit
allocation ioctl() hadn't been called yet.
> Do we need to preserve that behavior for some
> very old userspace applications?
No; as long as userspace has used this ioctl() at all, it has always
passed an explicit size, never attempted to use autosizing.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
