Re: [RFC 3/3] x68: acpi: trigger SMI before scanning for hotplugged CPUs

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 07/14/20 14:28, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> (CC'ing Peter Krempa due to virsh setvcpu (singular) / setvcpus (plural)
> references)
> 
> On 07/10/20 18:17, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> In case firmware has negotiated CPU hotplug SMI feature, generate
>> AML to describe SMI IO port region and send SMI to firmware
>> on each CPU hotplug SCI.
>>
>> It might be not really usable, but should serve as a starting point to
>> discuss how better to deal with split hotplug sequence during hot-add
>> (
>> ex scenario where it will break is:
>>    hot-add
>>       -> (QEMU) add CPU in hotplug regs
>>       -> (QEMU) SCI
>>            -1-> (OS) scan
>>                -1-> (OS) SMI
>>                -1-> (FW) pull in CPU1 ***
>>                -1-> (OS) start iterating hotplug regs
>>    hot-add
>>       -> (QEMU) add CPU in hotplug regs
>>       -> (QEMU) SCI
>>             -2-> (OS) scan (blocked on mutex till previous scan is finished)
>>                -1-> (OS) 1st added CPU1 send device check event -> INIT/SIPI
>>                -1-> (OS) 1st added CPU2 send device check event -> INIT/SIPI
>>                        that's where it explodes, since FW didn't see CPU2
>>                        when SMI was called
>> )
>>
>> hot remove will throw in yet another set of problems, so lets discuss
>> both here and see if we can  really share hotplug registers block between
>> FW and AML or we should do something else with it.
> 
> This issue is generally triggered by management applications such as
> libvirt that issue device_add commands in quick succession. For libvirt,
> the command is "virsh setvcpus" (plural) with multiple CPUs specified
> for plugging. The singular "virsh setvcpu" command, which is more
> friendly towards guest NUMA, does not run into the symptom.
> 
> The scope of the scan method lock is not large enough, with SMI in the
> picture.
> 
> I suggest that we not uproot the existing AML code or the hotplug
> register block. Instead, I suggest that we add serialization at a higher
> level, with sufficient scope.
> 
> QEMU:
> 
> - introduce a new flag standing for "CPU plug operation in progress"
> 
> - if ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_BROADCAST_BIT has been negotiated:
> 
>   - "device_add" and "device_del" should enforce
>     ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOTPLUG_BIT and
>     ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT, respectively
> 
>   - both device_add and device_del (for VCPUs) should set check the
>     "in progress" flag.
> 
>     - If set, reject the request synchronously
> 
>     - Otherwise, set the flag, and commence the operation
> 
>   - in cpu_hotplug_wr(), where we emit the ACPI_DEVICE_OST event with
>     qapi_event_send_acpi_device_ost(), clear the "in-progress" flag.
> 
> - If QEMU executes the QMP command processing and the cpu_hotplug_wr()
> function on different (host OS) threads, then perhaps we should use an
> atomic type for the flag. (Not sure about locking between QEMU threads,
> sorry.) I don't really expect race conditions, but in case we ever get
> stuck with the flag, we should make sure that the stuck state is "in
> progress", and not "not in progress". (The former state can prevent
> further plug operations, but cannot cause the guest to lose state.)

Furthermore, the "CPU plug operation in progress" flag should be:
- either migrated,
- or a migration blocker.

Because on the destination host, device_add should be possible if and
only if the plug operation completed (either still on the source host,
or on the destination host).

I guess that the "migration blocker" option is easier.

Anyway I assume this is already handled with memory hotplug somehow
(i.e., migration attempt between device_add and ACPI_DEVICE_OST).

Thanks,
Laszlo