Re: [qemu-s390x] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] s390: cpu feature for diagnose 318 andlimit max VCPUs to 247

[Cornelia Huck]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:20:08 +0100
David Hildenbrand <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 11.12.18 22:12, Collin Walling wrote:
> > On 12/11/18 11:47 AM, Collin Walling wrote:  
> >> On 12/7/18 7:08 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:  
> >>> On Thu,  6 Dec 2018 17:24:17 -0500
> >>> Collin Walling <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>  
> >>>> Diagnose 318 is a new z14.2 CPU feature. Since we are able to emulate
> >>>> it entirely via KVM, we can add guest support for earlier models. A
> >>>> new CPU feature for diagnose 318 (shortened to diag318) will be made
> >>>> available to guests starting with the zEC12-full CPU model.
> >>>>
> >>>> The z14.2 adds a new read SCP info byte (let's call it byte 134) to
> >>>> detect the availability of diag318. Because of this, we have room for
> >>>> one less VCPU and thus limit the max VPUs supported in a configuration
> >>>> to 247 (down from 248).
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Collin Walling <address@hidden>.
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  hw/s390x/sclp.c                 | 2 ++
> >>>>  include/hw/s390x/sclp.h         | 2 ++
> >>>>  target/s390x/cpu.h              | 2 +-
> >>>>  target/s390x/cpu_features.c     | 3 +++
> >>>>  target/s390x/cpu_features.h     | 1 +
> >>>>  target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h | 3 +++
> >>>>  target/s390x/gen-features.c     | 1 +
> >>>>  target/s390x/kvm.c              | 1 +
> >>>>  8 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>  
> >>>  
> >>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu.h b/target/s390x/cpu.h
> >>>> index 8c2320e..594b4a4 100644
> >>>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu.h
> >>>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu.h
> >>>> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@
> >>>>  
> >>>>  #define MMU_USER_IDX 0
> >>>>  
> >>>> -#define S390_MAX_CPUS 248
> >>>> +#define S390_MAX_CPUS 247  
> >>>
> >>> Isn't that already problematic if you try to migrate from an older QEMU
> >>> with all possible vcpus defined? IOW, don't you really need a way that
> >>> older machines can still run with one more vcpu?
> >>>  
> >>
> >> Good call. I'll run some tests on this and see what happens. I'll report
> >> here on those results.
> >>  
> > 
> > Migrating to a machine that supports less vCPUs will report
> > 
> > error: unsupported configuration: Maximum CPUs greater than specified 
> > machine type limit
> > 
> > I revisited the code to see if there's a way to dynamically set the max 
> > vcpu count based 
> > on the read scp info size, but it gets really tricky and code looks very 
> > complicated.
> > (Having a packed struct contain the CPU entries whose maximum is determined 
> > by hardware
> > limitations makes things difficult -- but who said s390 is easy? :) )
> > 
> > In reality, do we often have guests running with 248 or even 247 vcpus? If 
> > so, I imagine
> > the performance isn't too significant?  
> Gluing CPU feature availability to machines is plain ugly. This sounds
> like going back to pre-cpu model times ;)
> 
> There are two alternatives:
> 
> a) Don't model it as a CPU feature in QEMU. Glue it completely to the
> QEMU machine. This goes hand-in-hand with the proposal I made in the KVM
> thread, that diag318 is to be handled completely in QEMU, always. The
> KVM setting part is optional (if KVM + HW support it).
> 
> Then we can have two different max_cpus/ReadInfo layouts based on the
> machine type. No need to worry about QEMU cpu features.
> 
> Once we have other SCLP features (eventually requiring KVM/HW support)
> announced in the same feature block, things might get more involved, but
> I guess we could handle it somehow.

Perhaps via a capability to be enabled?

> 
> 
> b) Glue the ReadInfo layout to the CPU feature, we would have to
> default-disable the CPU feature for legacy machines. And bail out if
> more CPUs are used when the feature is enabled. Hairy.
> 
> 
> I guess a) would be the best thing to do. After all this really does not
> sound like a CPU feature but more like a machine feature. But there is
> usually a fine line between them.

a) sounds like the better option to me as well.