Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] s390/migration: Provide a cpu save for initial life migration work

[Jan Kiszka]

On 2012-11-21 16:08, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 21/11/12 16:06, Alexander Graf wrote:
> [...]
>>>>>>> +static int cpu_post_load(void *opaque, int version_id)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +    CPUS390XState *env = opaque;
>>>>>>> +    struct kvm_fpu fpu;
>>>>>>> +    int i, r;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    if (!kvm_enabled()) {
>>>>>>> +        return 0;
>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    for (i = 0; i<    16; i++) {
>>>>>>> +        fpu.fprs[i] = env->fregs[i].ll;
>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>> +    fpu.fpc = env->fpc;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    r = kvm_vcpu_ioctl(env, KVM_SET_FPU,&fpu);
>>>>>>> +    assert(r == 0);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> The kvm register sync needs to happen in the kvm register sync function 
>>>>>> :)
>>>>> That would eliminate the whole purpose of sync regs and forces us to have 
>>>>> an
>>>>> expensive ioctl on lots of exits (again). I would prefer to sync the 
>>>>> registers
>>>>> that we never need in qemu just here.
>>>> That's why the register sync has different stages.
>>> Not the get_register. Which is called on every synchronize_state. Which 
>>> happen quite often
>>> on s390.
>>
>> Sounds like bad design then :).
>>
>> Maybe we should explicitly tell the register synchronization which register 
>> sets to sync, so that we don't waste time getting _all_ the state every time 
>> we sync registers?
> 
> Yes, a level statement for kvm_arch_get_registers would be good.
> 

The challenge is defining those levels generically - as it is also
generic code that calls cpu_synchronize_state. What levels do you have
in mind? And where would they be applied?

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux