Juan,
On Tue, Dec 14 2021 at 20:07, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 14 2021 at 16:11, Wei W. Wang wrote:
>>> We need to check with the QEMU migration maintainer (Dave and Juan CC-ed)
>>> if changing that ordering would be OK.
>>> (In general, I think there are no hard rules documented for this ordering)
>>
>> There haven't been ordering requirements so far, but with dynamic
>> feature enablement there are.
>>
>> I really want to avoid going to the point to deduce it from the
>> xstate:xfeatures bitmap, which is just backwards and Qemu has all the
>> required information already.
>
> First of all, I claim ZERO knowledge about low level x86_64.
Lucky you.
> Once told that, this don't matter for qemu migration, code is at
Once, that was at the time where rubber boots were still made of wood,
right? :)
> target/i386/kvm/kvm.c:kvm_arch_put_registers()
>
>
> ret = kvm_put_xsave(x86_cpu);
> if (ret < 0) {
> return ret;
> }
> ret = kvm_put_xcrs(x86_cpu);
> if (ret < 0) {
> return ret;
> }
> /* must be before kvm_put_msrs */
> ret = kvm_inject_mce_oldstyle(x86_cpu);
So this has already ordering requirements.
> if (ret < 0) {
> return ret;
> }
> ret = kvm_put_msrs(x86_cpu, level);
> if (ret < 0) {
> return ret;
> }
>
> If it needs to be done in any other order, it is completely independent
> of whatever is inside the migration stream.
>From the migration data perspective that's correct, but I have the
nagging feeling that this in not that simple.
> I guess that Paolo will put some light here.
I fear shining light on that will unearth quite a few skeletons :)
Thanks,
tglx
