Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v3 4/4] target-ppc: Handle ibm, nmi-register RTAS call

[Alexander Graf]

On 05.11.14 11:37, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 05 November 2014 02:02 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05.11.14 08:13, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>>> This patch adds FWNMI support in qemu for powerKVM
>>> guests by handling the ibm,nmi-register rtas call.
>>> Whenever OS issues ibm,nmi-register RTAS call, the
>>> machine check notification address is saved and the
>>> machine check interrupt vector 0x200 is patched to
>>> issue a private hcall.
>>>
>>> This patch also handles the cases when multi-processors
>>> experience machine check at or about the same time.
>>> As per PAPR, subsequent processors serialize waiting
>>> for the first processor to issue the ibm,nmi-interlock call.
>>> The second processor retries if the first processor which
>>> received a machine check is still reading the error log
>>> and is yet to issue ibm,nmi-interlock call.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aravinda Prasad <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c            |   16 +++++++
>>>  hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c             |   93 
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  include/hw/ppc/spapr.h          |   17 +++++++
>>>  pc-bios/spapr-rtas/spapr-rtas.S |   38 ++++++++++++++++
>>>  4 files changed, 163 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
>>> index 8f16160..eceb5e5 100644
>>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
>>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
>>> @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ struct rtas_mc_log {
>>>      struct rtas_error_log err_log;
>>>  };
>>>  
>>> +/* Whether machine check handling is in progress by any CPU */
>>> +bool mc_in_progress;
>>> +
>>>  static void do_spr_sync(void *arg)
>>>  {
>>>      struct SPRSyncState *s = arg;
>>> @@ -678,6 +681,19 @@ static target_ulong h_report_mc_err(PowerPCCPU *cpu, 
>>> sPAPREnvironment *spapr,
>>>      cpu_synchronize_state(CPU(ppc_env_get_cpu(env)));
>>>  
>>>      /*
>>> +     * Only one VCPU can process machine check NMI at a time. Hence
>>> +     * set the lock mc_in_progress. Once the VCPU finishes processing
>>> +     * NMI, it executes ibm,nmi-interlock and mc_in_progress is unset
>>> +     * in ibm,nmi-interlock handler. Meanwhile if other VCPUs encounter
>>> +     * NMI we return 0 asking the VCPU to retry h_report_mc_err
>>> +     */
>>> +    if (mc_in_progress == 1) {
>>
>> Please don't depend on bools being numbers. Use true / false. For if()s,
>> just don't use == at all - it makes it more readable.
> 
> ok
> 
>>
>>> +        return 0;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    mc_in_progress = 1;
>>> +
>>> +    /*
>>>       * We save the original r3 register in SPRG2 in 0x200 vector,
>>>       * which is patched during call to ibm.nmi-register. Original
>>>       * r3 is required to be included in error log
>>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c
>>> index 2ec2a8e..71c7662 100644
>>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c
>>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c
>>> @@ -36,6 +36,9 @@
>>>  
>>>  #include <libfdt.h>
>>>  
>>> +#define BRANCH_INST_MASK  0xFC000000
>>> +extern bool mc_in_progress;
>>
>> Please put this into the spapr struct.
> 
> ok
> 
>>
>>> +
>>>  static void rtas_display_character(PowerPCCPU *cpu, sPAPREnvironment 
>>> *spapr,
>>>                                     uint32_t token, uint32_t nargs,
>>>                                     target_ulong args,
>>> @@ -290,6 +293,90 @@ static void rtas_ibm_os_term(PowerPCCPU *cpu,
>>>      rtas_st(rets, 0, ret);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static void rtas_ibm_nmi_register(PowerPCCPU *cpu,
>>> +                                  sPAPREnvironment *spapr,
>>> +                                  uint32_t token, uint32_t nargs,
>>> +                                  target_ulong args,
>>> +                                  uint32_t nret, target_ulong rets)
>>> +{
>>> +    int i;
>>> +    uint32_t ori_inst = 0x60630000;
>>> +    uint32_t branch_inst = 0x48000002;
>>> +    target_ulong guest_machine_check_addr;
>>> +    uint32_t trampoline[TRAMPOLINE_INSTS];
>>> +    int total_inst = sizeof(trampoline) / sizeof(uint32_t);
>>
>> ARRAY_SIZE(trampoline), though I don't quite understand why you need a
>> variable that contains the same value as a constant (TRAMPOLINE_INSTS).
>>
>> But since you're moving all of those bits into variable fields on the
>> rtas blob itself as we discussed in the last version, I guess this code
>> will go away anyways ;).
> 
> I think we still need this. We need to patch the KVMPPC_H_REPORT_MC_ERR
> number and branch address in the trampoline and also, depending on
> whether the guest running in LE/BE we may need to flip the bits in the
> trampoline before copying it to 0x200 machine check vector.
> 
> As rtas-blob is part of the guest memory I do not want to patch these in
> rtas-blob, hence I copy the trampoline from the rtas-blob to an array,
> modify accordingly and then move it to 0x200 machine check vector.

Yes, you will still need the array. But the array should be dynamically
sized based on spapr->rtas_info->fwnmi_size which you extract from the
blob on load.

That way you wouldn't need the "total_inst" variable anymore ;).

> 
>>
>>> +    PowerPCCPUClass *pcc = POWERPC_CPU_GET_CLASS(cpu);
>>> +
>>> +    /* Store the system reset and machine check address */
>>> +    guest_machine_check_addr = rtas_ld(args, 1);
>>
>> Load or Store? I don't find the comment particularly useful either ;).
> 
> will reword it or may delete it.
> 
>>
>>> +
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * Read the trampoline instructions from RTAS Blob and patch
>>> +     * the KVMPPC_H_REPORT_MC_ERR hcall number and the guest
>>> +     * machine check address before copying to 0x200 vector
>>> +     */
>>> +    cpu_physical_memory_read(spapr->rtas_addr + RTAS_TRAMPOLINE_OFFSET,
>>> +                             trampoline, sizeof(trampoline));
>>> +
>>> +    /* Safety Check */
>>
>> Same for this comment.
> 
> we have only 0x100 bytes that can be copied at 0x200. If the trampoline
> size exceeds then the next interrupt vector code is overwritten. Hence a
> safety check during compile time to make sure trampoline is within 0x100
> bytes.

I think the check is fine, the comment is just redundant with
QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON. Either be more verbose in the comment or remove it
;). But something a la

  /* check for failure */
  BUG_ON(foo);

is useless redundancy, because everyone already knows that BUG_ON checks
for failure.

The interesting bit is the why. Also, as a general rule of thumb, if you
need a comment explaining the "what" of what you're doing, your function
and/or variable names are probably not well chosen ;). But I don't think
this is a problem here.

Thanks for the patches btw :)


Alex