On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 06:35:34PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> On 1/22/19 6:05 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 07:43:17PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >> This is the basic framework for the new KVM device supporting the XIVE
> >> native exploitation mode. The user interface exposes a new capability
> >> and a new KVM device to be used by QEMU.
> >
> > [snip]
> >> @@ -1039,7 +1039,10 @@ static int kvmppc_book3s_init(void)
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_XIVE
> >> if (xive_enabled()) {
> >> kvmppc_xive_init_module();
> >> + kvmppc_xive_native_init_module();
> >> kvm_register_device_ops(&kvm_xive_ops, KVM_DEV_TYPE_XICS);
> >> + kvm_register_device_ops(&kvm_xive_native_ops,
> >> + KVM_DEV_TYPE_XIVE);
> >
> > I think we want tighter conditions on initializing the xive_native
> > stuff and creating the xive device class. We could have
> > xive_enabled() returning true in a guest, and this code will get
> > called both by PR KVM and HV KVM (and HV KVM no longer implies that we
> > are running bare metal).
>
> So yes, I gave nested a try with kernel_irqchip=on and the nested hypervisor
> (L1) obviously crashes trying to call OPAL. I have tighten the test with :
>
> if (xive_enabled() && !kvmhv_on_pseries()) {
>
> for now.
>
> As this is a problem today in 5.0.x, I will send a patch for it if you think
How do you mean this is a problem today in 5.0? I just tried 5.0-rc1
with kernel_irqchip=on in a nested guest and it works just fine. What
exactly did you test?
> it is correct. I don't think we should bother taking care of the PR case
> on P9. Should we ?
We do need to take care of PR KVM on P9, since it is the only form of
nested KVM that works inside a host in HPT mode.
Paul.
